Sitting of 19 July 1962

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

  TAY ROAD BRIDGE CONFIRMATION BILL
  Order for Consideration read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now considered.
  Question amended, by leaving out the words "now considered" and adding the words "committed to a Committee of the whole House"—[The Chairman of Ways and Means]—instead thereof, and, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  Committee upon Monday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Oldham (Drowning Accidents)
    Mr. Haleasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware that seven Oldham children have been drowned in recent years in neglected standing waters adjacent to abandoned mills; and what steps he proposes to take to enable the focal corporation to deal with these dangers.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): I know that there have been fatal accidents in these places. The Oldham Corporation obtained powers in 1960 to require the
    604
    fencing of dangerous mill lodges, and there are powers in the Highways Act, 1959, under which local authorities can require the fencing of dangerous places adjoining streets. These powers should be sufficient to enable the Oldham Corporation to deal with the situation.
    Mr. Hale: While congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on this first appearance at Question Time in his new capacity, may I say that, although Oldham has limited and thoroughly inadequate powers under its local Act, the adjoining urban district of Chadderton possesses none at all? This is a grave problem which has resulted in loss of life, but as the right hon. Gentleman, with his customary courtesy, has offered to discuss the matter with me, I will avail myself of that privilege.
    Sir K. Joseph: I am grateful to the hon. Member. All local authorities share some of these powers under the Highways Act, 1959.

    Industrial Areas (Trees and Shrubs)
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will make a statement giving details of the results obtained since has Department's circular was issued on the need for the planting of more trees in industrial areas; what further action it is now proposed to take to clean and brighten industrial areas, towns and cities and to increase the planting of turf, shrubs, plants and trees; and if he will issue a circular calling for a three-years' intensive drive towards this objective to be carried out by all towns and cities.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): There are increasing examples of tree-planting in towns. Much as my right hon. Friend agrees with the hon. Member's objectives he does not think further stimulus is needed.

    Clean Air Act
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will arrange for an intensive drive towards the full implementation of the Clean Air

    605
    Act to be made before next winter within the industrial areas which suffer most from air pollution; and if he will require special attention to be given to Stoke-on-Trent, Salford, Trafford Park, Manchester, Bolton and Warrington.
    Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend will continue to urge all black area authorities in England and Wales, including those named by the hon. Member, to make vigorous use of their powers under the Act.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Is the hon. Member aware that we were hoping that, with the coming of new Ministers, there would be more initiative in his Department? Is he further aware that we have not had much encouragement for that view from the replies to the last two Questions? Has not the time arrived when industrial areas of this kind should be subjected to the drive by the Ministry which is essential if we are to keep up with the rest of Europe in this respect?
    Mr. Corfield: While I appreciate the hon. Member's views, I do not think that there is evidence that local authorities as a whole are backward in enforcing the general provisions of the Act. We should like to see faster progress in the establishment of smoke control, but it would not be justified to pick out the particular areas the hon. Member has mentioned, since there are many other areas in similar conditions.
    Mrs. Slater: Is it not the case that many of the local authorities in these areas do an awful lot to try to clean up the atmosphere but that there is great reluctance by some industries to install new machinery which would make it possible completely to eliminate the smoke nuisance? I am not referring to the pottery industry, which has done a lot, but mostly to such concerns as iron foundries. In my constituency we have a dreadful case. Excuse after excuse is made and it is time that the Minister gave instructions.
    Mr. Corfield: If the hon. Lady would like to write to me, I will look into any particular case, but it may well be that she is speaking of industries controlled under the Alkali Act. That is a different question.

    Local Authority Borrowing (Short-term Loans)
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how much local authority borrowing is currently on short term; and what is the average rate of interest being paid on these loans.
    Mr. Corfield: For local authorities in the United Kingdom the amount of temporary borrowing outstanding at 31st December, 1961, was £1,080 million and the average rate of interest upon it in May, 1962, was 4½ per cent.
    Mr. Boyden: Is it not a fact that too much money is being borrowed at short term? Is not the rate of interest too high, and is not a great deal of it "hot" money from abroad? What is the hon. Gentleman going to do about what should be a stable element in the English economy?
    Mr. Corfield: I have no information about whether it is hot money from abroad, as the hon. Gentleman described it. I agree that excessive reliance on short-term money may have its dangers, but I think that it is a matter of opinion where the limit lies. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently asked for a full appraisal of all aspects of local authority capital finance, and no doubt this is a matter which will be considered.
    Mr. MacColl: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Radcliffe Committee specifically criticised the proportion of local authority investment at short term and that his right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) has also criticised it? Is the hon. Gentleman in consultation with the Treasury about the proportion of local authority investment which should be at short term?
    Mr. Corfield: As I indicated, this matter is being considered by the Treasury and I think that it would be unwise to commit myself any further at this stage.

    New Towns (Local Committees)
    Mr. M. Stewartasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will make an order under Section 2 (3)

    607
    of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act, 1960, adding to the list of bodies in the Schedule to that Act the committees for new towns described in paragraph 2 of the First Schedule to the New Towns Act, 1959
    Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. The character and functions of the local committees set up by the Commission for the New Towns are quite different from those of the other bodies listed in the Act of 1960.
    Mr. Stewart: Would not the Minister accept that the functions of the bodies already listed differ a great deal from one another, so that really that is not an answer at all? As the decisions taken by these committees are of great interest to townspeople, will he reconsider his reply?
    Sir K. Joseph: I think not, because although they are naturally of great interest to townspeople, the Commission will devise its own methods of publicity. These are really only management committees dealing with what are essentially, in most cases, likely to be personal matters where attendance at meetings is not in the interests of the people concerned.

    Trosley Towers, Kent (Proposed Development)
    Mr. Kirkasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when he will be able to announce his decision regarding the proposed development at Trosley Towers. Kent.
    Mr. J. Rodgersasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is yet in a position to give his decision with regard to proposed developments at Trosley Towers.
    Sir K. Joseph: Soon, I hope.
    Mr. Kirk: So do I. It is now nine months since the inquiry. Why has it taken so long to get a decision on this grave matter?
    Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend will appreciate that this raises substantial issues and that we have to make sure that we get the decision right.
    Mr. Ede: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter has been outstanding for a very long time, and that
    608
    the preservation of the skyline of the North Downs is a matter which should be decided very quickly?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir, but as the right hon. Gentleman knows there are seldom situations which drag on for so many years which are absolutely simple, and we have had to study the considerations here very carefully.

    Gypsies
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, in view of the present situation in Kent, what approach has been made by the county council for assistance in finding sites for gypsies and other travellers in accordance with the offer in his Departmental Circular No. 6/62; what discussions have taken place between the officials of his Department and of the county council; and what progress has been made to deal with the problems involved.
    Mr. Corfield: Several discussions between representatives of the Department and of the county council on how best to meet the needs disclosed by the council's survey in February show that it is bound to take time to find and provide suitable sites. But the county council is meeting the district councils this week and my right hon. Friend very much hopes that there will be some results from this.
    Mr. Dodds: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in one incident in January 300 people were deposited by the local authority on the side of one of Britain's main trunk roads? So far only pious hopes have been expressed about it. Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that I am deeply grateful to his right hon. Friend's predecessor for the wonderful spadework he has done in this respect? I ask the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend not to waste time and allow that work to be frittered away before the winter.
    Mr. Corfield: I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend is determined to show the same enthusiasm as was shown by his predecessor. I assume that the hon. Gentleman was referring to the

    609
    A.2. As he knows, a planning appeal is pending, and we shall deal with that as quickly as we possibly can.
    Mr. C. Hughes: In view of the paucity of information about gypsies, will the hon. Gentleman discuss with his right hon. Friend the possibility of publishing a White Paper when these surveys have been completed, giving a summary of the findings so that the House and the country may be in a better position to judge what should be done for them?
    Mr. Corfield: I will certainly consider that suggestion, or any other means of making the information public.
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what is the nature of the replies from the Buckingham County Council and the Essex County Council to his Circular No. 6/62 of 8th February, 1962, on the gypsy problem.
    Mr. Corfield: The Buckingham County Council has stated that it is making a survey of the problem and will inform my right hon. Friend of the result. We have not yet heard from the Essex County Council.
    Mr. Dodds: Will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that both counties have shocking records in this respect, and that the Essex County Council recently got rid of 100 of these people, with their caravans and animals, from county council ground, by dumping them on the side of the main London-Southend road? Will he bear in mind that because of persecution in Essex, through its failure to face the problem, many of these people have been driven over to Kent? That is not a solution.
    Mr. Corfield: I certainly undertake to look into that problem and communicate with the hon. Member.
    Mr. C. Hughes: In view of the urgency of this problem, can the Parliamentary Secretary say when he expects the results of these surveys to reach him, and when he will be able to give the House some indication of the action which the Government will take in this matter?
    Mr. Corfield: I expect that this will be almost immediately after the House resumes after the Summer Recess.
    Mr. R. Edwardsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy in regard to Circular No. 6/62 of 8th February, 1962, on gypsies and other travellers.
    Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend is glad to have this opportunity to endorse the policy set out in Circular No. 6/62, and hopes that action on the lines suggested in the circular will be taken by the local authorities concerned wherever the need arises.
    Mr. Edwards: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the circular issued by the previous Minister was a very human and constructive document, and that hon. Members on this side of the House who are concerned about human rights hope that this policy will be pressed forward so that the plight of the Romanies and other travellers will be alleviated at least by the winter?
    Mr. Corfield: I think that I made clear in Answers to earlier Questions that it is the desire of my right hon. Friend to pursue, the policy of his predecessor with equal vigour. I can assure the hon. Member that there is no monopoly of humanity on the other side of the House.

    Sewerage Plant, Hornchurch
    Mr. Lagdenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will make a statement concerning the lack of sewerage plant in the Hornchurch area.
    Mr. Corfield: Sewage disposal arrangements in Hornchurch are admittedly far from adequate. Conditions are particularly bad at the Bretons Farm Works, which is due to be closed when Dagenham's Riverside Works have been reconstructed. Plans are being prepared for the reconstruction of the Riverside Works and my right hon. Friend hopes the local authority will press ahead urgently.
    Mr. Lagden: While thanking my horn. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that medical opinion in the area about the state of the sewerage plant is that it causes offensive odours, ill-health, nausea and vomiting, and will he kindly bear in mind that this is a matter of great urgency indeed?
    Mr. Corfield: I assure my hon. Friend that we regard this as a matter of urgency. I think that he is aware of some of the causes which have led to delay, and I am sure he will realise that these are not entirely the fault of my Department.
    Mr. Lagden: In view of the courtesy and consideration shown in that reply, I give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Local Government Commissions (Proposals)
    Mr. MacCollasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what proposals have been submitted to him by the local government commissions; what action he proposes to take on them; and when.
    Sir K. Joseph: The Local Government Commission for England submitted final reports and proposals on the West Midlands Special Review Area and the West Midlands General Review Area in May, 1961, and on the East Midlands General Review Area in July, 1961.
    Under the Local Government Act, 1958, I am required to publish the reports and consider any objections before deciding what action to take. Inquiries have been held into the objections to a number of major proposals and I am now studying the Inspectors' reports. I shall announce my decisions as soon as I can.
    Mr. MacColl: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when that is likely to be, in view of the uncertainty that is bound to be caused by having these proposals floating around undecided?
    Sir K. Joseph: I recognise that but I think that I must reserve my position. The decisions must be carefully considered, and I can only repeat that they will be made each in their own turn as soon as possible.

    Old People's Home, Paignton
    Mr. F. M. Bennettasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when he expects to confirm loan sanction consent for the purchase and erection of a home for old people in Paignton,
    612
    under Section 119 of the Housing Act, 1957.
    Mr. Corfield: Formal application for loan sanction in respect of this scheme was received only on 11th July, This will be considered promptly as soon as detailed plans are supplied.
    Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend realise that that reply is rather misleading? Does he further realise that this scheme, which was initiated entirely by voluntary effort, was initiated as long ago as January, 1961, and that approval in principle from his Ministry was forthcoming over a year ago? Does he realise that people in my constituency, who are doing this entirely voluntarily, are becoming tired of playing the game of snakes and ladders? Will my hon. Friend make sure that in future there are rather more ladders and fewer snakes?
    Mr. Corfield: I accept my hon. Friend's request, but I hope that he will consider the element of delay that has been caused, no doubt purely through misunderstanding, at the other end of the ladder.

    British Railways
    Mr. Straussasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what communication he has received from local authorities about the financing of British Railways' losses out of rates; and what replies he has sent.
    Sir K. Joseph: None, Sir.
    Mr. Strauss: Is the Minister aware that Dr. Beeching and the Minister of Transport have suggested that the burden of paying for the deficit on local railway services should be placed on local authorities? When local authorities protest strongly against the proposal, as they are bound to do, could not he suggest to them that they might meet this purpose and pay off the deficit by organising flag days?
    Sir K. Joseph: I do not altogether agree with the right hon. Gentleman As far as my records show, on 4th July my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport told the House that he has no proposals for subsidising railway services from rates.
    Mr. Strauss: But is not the Minister aware that in a previous speech the Minister of Transport suggested that this was one of the sources from which deficits arising on local train services might be met?
    Sir K. Joseph indicated dissent.
    Mr. H. Butler: Is the Minister aware that the ratepayers of the new town of Basildon have been asked to bear the expense of a new station?
    Sir K. Joseph: That is a different Question from the one that I am answering, but if the hon. Member puts it down it will be considered.

    Mains Sewerage Facilities, Rural Areas
    Mr. Hiltonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will state the percentage of the rural population whose homes are not connected with mains sewerage facilities.
    Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend regrets that this information is not available.
    Mr. Hilton: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that far too many properties in rural areas are without this important amenity? Is he aware that I was recently in his own constituency and that I know that the same problem exists there? Why should people in rural areas be expected to live in such primitive conditions in 1962? I appreciate that there has been a change of Minister and may I ask whether, in consultation with his right hon. Friend, the hon. Gentleman will give this matter further and urgent consideration?
    Mr. Corfield: I will certainly give it consideration, but I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that figures of this sort can be very misleading. As I am sure he will know, in many of the remoter rural areas the figures do not show whether other types of drainage are adequate or inadequate. In many cases they are adequate.
    Sir H. Harrison: Would not my hon. Friend agree that rural district councils have been most forward-looking in the last ten years, and that, with Government support, a large number of schemes
    614
    for sewerage and sewage disposal have been successfully carried out?
    Mr. Corfield: I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for asking that question. Over the last five years nearly £70 million has been spent on rural sewerage and sewage disposal work, over £12 million being Government grants.
    Mr. C. Hughes: Why has the hon. Gentleman not been able to obtain the figures for which my hon. Friend asked? Is not it possible to get them from water authorities and undertakings? Is it not the case that in many areas in Wales and in the north of England the percentages are very high? Will his hon. Friend institute a drive to see that these people get this important amenity?
    Mr. Corfield: Of course we could obtain these figures by circularising all the rural authorities and asking for them. But, as I attempted to indicate to the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton), it is doubtful whether the figures would reveal anything. I am sure that the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) knows many parts of his own constituency where it would be wholly out of place to try to provide these facilities.

    Mains Water Supplies, Rural Areas
    Mr. Hiltonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will state the percentage of the rural population whose homes are not connected with mains water supplies, and the number of farms which are not connected with mains water supplies.
    Mr. Corfield: It is estimated that about 10 per cent. of the rural population of England and Wales are without a mains water supply. Corresponding information about farms is not at present available.
    Mr. Hilton: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that a figure of 10 per cent. is far too high? I agree that some local authorities have done pretty well, but is it not the case that others run up against difficulty because of the high interest rate which they have to pay on loans? Would not the hon. Gentleman, in consultation with his right hon.

    615
    Friend, consider making loans at a low interest rate to local authorities who are prepared to get on with the job?
    Mr. Corfield: There are, I think, powers under which help could be given, but I should like further notice of that question. May I again point out that there are certain areas where a non-mains water supply is perfectly adequate, especially on farms. There is a survey on farms being conducted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the result will be available.

  HOUSING

    Housing Act, 1961 (Part II)
    Mr. N. Pannellasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what reports he has received from local authorities regarding the operation of Part II of the Housing Act, 1961, concerning houses in multiple occupation.
    Sir K. Joseph: None, Sir. It is too soon to expect useful reports on the working of provisions which have been in operation only a few months.
    Mr. Pannell: While adding my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on his appointment, may I ask whether he is aware that certain local authorities are experiencing great difficulties in obtaining information regarding these houses in multi-occupation because of the non-co-operation of the occupants, and that other local authorities are reluctant to implement this part of the Act because it means that they have to rehouse those who are displaced to the detriment of those on the waiting list for houses? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that this grave problem, which has been aggravated by the great influx of immigrants in recent months, is dealt with with the greatest urgency?
    Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend is really raising two questions. The first is about reporting to my Department. It is open to any local authority to write to me on any of its experiences under this part of the Act without waiting for the request I shall make generally in two years' time. As regards the second, while recognising the difficulties of some local authorities, I would point out that
    616
    the purpose of the Act is to enable them to stop matters getting worse even in those cases where they cannot make them get better.

    Liverpool
    Mrs. Braddockasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs on what date he intends to send officials from his department to confer with the officials of the Liverpool Housing Department regarding the speeding up of house building to meet the needs of Liverpool.
    Sir K. Joseph: Discussions between officials have already taken place and others will follow to the extent necessary from time to time.
    Mrs. Braddock: As this Question was tabled to the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make it his business to pay a visit immediately to Liverpool to acquaint himself with the grave difficulties there and thus put himself in a position to give instruction about the work that ought to be done?
    Sir K. Joseph: I should like to take this opportunity to pay a tribute to my predecessor both for what he has done and for what he has set in hand. He has left me a considerable tour of other slum areas to carry out, and I must carry on with that. My Permanent Secretary was in Liverpool yesterday, and I am aware of what is going on in that city.
    Mr. MacColl: The right hon. Gentleman had better be careful. His predecessor went to Merseyside and undertook to do something about the slums, and lost his job. If the right hon. Gentleman proposes to make tours, is not he in imminent danger of suffering the same fate?

    Slum Clearance
    Mr. Haleasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will make a statement on his recent visit to Oldham and other Lancashire towns with major housing problems; and what steps he has in view to implement his expressed desire for a more determined attack on the problem of slum clearance and of overcrowding.
    Sir K. Joseph: Oldham has a very large and urgent slum clearance problem. The council intends to increase substantially its rate of house building for this purpose provided the additional labour required can be obtained. During my predecessor's recent visit he suggested possible ways of attracting outside firms to the area, and these are to be pursued further in conjunction with my Department. I will also offer technical assistance to speed up the preparation of housing lay-outs and designs.
    Mr. Hale: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he bear in mind that this problem remains very much the same as it was 11 years ago, and that the immense burdens that the Corporation has to face under the present method of finance and under the Government's interest charges make it an almost superhuman problem to take sufficiently quickly the urgently required steps? Will he also take into account the question of additional finance for hard-pressed borough and urban councils which have been left with a burden from the years that have gone?
    Sir K. Joseph: I accept the urgent need, but we face a situation in which the whole building force of England and Wales is working at full stretch on all sorts of activities, and Oldham faces the need to attract further building labour or, by good management, to get more output from its existing labour. I fully accept the challenge that faces the Government.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Does the Minister think that it will be possible to deal with the slum problem generally unless he reverses the tendency of the last seven years and once more raises the output of council houses? Will he do that?
    Sir K. Joseph: I hope we shall find that, as has already happened this year, the trend of council house building is increasing.
    Mr. Wainwrightasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will give the number of local authorities who have submitted plains for slum clearance for the years 1962, 1963 and 1964, the number of houses for which they have
    618
    applied for replacement, and the number of such houses for which he has given sanction.
    Mr. Corfield: The form in which local authorities normally submit their slum clearance proposals and house building programmes does not enable me to give the hon. Member the information asked for.
    Mr. Wainwright: Is it not the policy of the Ministry to restrict local authorities in the number of houses they want to build to replace slums? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a local authority in my division made an application in respect of slum clearance, but the Ministry turned the application down? Because of the persistence of the local authority we hope that the Ministry will now change its mind. Will the hon. Gentleman on all occasions take note of what local authorities want to do to clear slum houses?
    Mr. Corfield: Yes, indeed, and if the hon. Gentleman will give me further details of that case I will certainly look into it.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: What is the hon. Gentleman's attitude towards the recent Report by the Civic Trust, which recommends that slum clearance be raised from the present 60,000 houses a year to 180,000 houses a year?
    Mr. Corfield: As the hon. Gentleman knows, at the moment the allocation of the purposes for which houses are built is left very largely with local authorities. I take the view that that is the right place for the responsibility to reside.

    Homeless People, London
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what special action, if necessary by legislation, he will now take to deal with the further increase in the number of homeless persons in London.
    Sir K. Joseph: Before deciding what action may be necessary, I shall study the report of the London County Council's committee of inquiry and hear the views of the council. I have already agreed to meet representatives of the council for this purpose.
    Mr. Lipton: As the previous Minister failed to tackle the scandal of the growing number of homeless in the London area, will the new Minister give an assurance that he will not merely follow the ineffective policies of his predecessor but will take drastic action to deal with a shameful state of affairs?
    Sir K. Joseph: I do not accept the charges of the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend was ineffective. The House must realise that there are in London fewer residents and more houses, but because of the high number of households as opposed to people, there is still great competition for dwellings. It is a fact that there should be dwellings for the poorest, since there are about 300,000 subsidised dwellings in the L.C.C. boundaries, but rigidity—a rigidity which is sometimes associated with humanity—tends to freeze tenancies. This is a very big problem.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Does the Minister remember that his predecessor took the view that this was something to be solved entirely by action by the London County Council, but that the recent report has made it quite clear that that is not so? Does he realise, therefore, that he must look at this problem with a fresh mind?
    Sir K. Joseph: I do not think that my right hon. Friend took that simple view of what is a very complex problem. Of course, it is not caused by any one factor; a number of factors are involved, and I shall continue the active study initiated by my right hon. Friend and helped by the report the London County Council has had prepared.
    Mr. Stewart: Will the Minister refresh his mind on this? Does not he recall that his right hon. Friend said specifically that all the problems arising out of this situation could be dealt with by L.C.C. action? Will he now agree that that is not so?
    Sir K. Joseph: I doubt whether my right hon. Friend said anything as simple as that. The L.C.C. has a great part to play in this, but the factors are wider than those under L.C.C. control alone. That I accept.

    Local Authority Houses (Average Area)
    Mr. Wainwrightasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and
    620
    Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will give the area in square feet of the houses built by, or on behalf of, local authorities for the years 1947, 1948, 1949, 1959, 1960 and 1961.
    Mr. Corfield: The average area of three-bedroom council houses in tenders approved in each of the years referred to was as follows:

    square feet

    1947

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,043

    1948

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,053

    1949

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,055

    1959

    …

    …

    …

    …

    897

    1960

    …

    …

    …

    …

    897

    1961

    …

    …

    …

    …

    898

    These figures include the area of any outbuildings.
    Mr. Wainwright: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that his right hon. Friend's predecessor made a statement to a builders' conference in London on 5th April, 1962, to the effect that many new houses are too small, ill-equipped, dull to look at, or just plain ugly? Does not he think that this policy is killing the imagination of designers and architects, who want to build good houses but cannot do so because of the smaller area in which they have to work?
    Mr. Corfield: It is a question of balance. Where we have the situation of a fully stretched building industry there is to some extent the necessity to choose between numbers and size. I have no doubt that the right choice has been taken.
    Mr. Wainwright: But does not the Parliamentary Secretary realise that houses are built to remain for 60 years, and we do not want to have slum houses with us in another 60 years' time? Will he do something about it?
    Mr. Corfield: I do not think that there has been a reduction of quality to the extent to which the hon. Gentleman refers. All these sizes have been agreed, and are in part the result of improvements in architectural design.
    Mr. MacColl: The hon. Gentleman said that we must choose between numbers and size. Is not he aware that the complaint is that we are getting neither numbers nor size, and that the number of council house completions is lower than 15 yearns ago?
    Mr. Corfield: I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that when the

    621
    rather larger area was in force, under a Government of his own party, the numbers were substantially fewer.

    Local Authority Houses (Average Tender Price)
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister of Welsh Affairs what are the provisional figures for April and May of this year for the average tender price per square foot for local authority houses.
    Mr. Corfield: The average price pea-square foot of three-bedroom houses in tenders approved during April and May was 41s. 7d. and 41s. 8d. respectively.
    Mr. Boyden: Does not this mean that the average tender price for council houses of 900 square feet has gone up by £300 in the last 18 months? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor, when he answered a similar Question on 12th July, agreed that faster completion was not the only answer to the problem of getting the price down? Will the hon. Gentleman carry on with the story and tell me what other steps the Government intend to take to get the price down?
    Mr. Corfield: I will take the arithmetic of the hon. Gentleman for granted because such a calculation is beyond me at the moment. I think that the most promising line of advance is towards more standardisation and greater productivity in the building industry. This is a matter to which my right hon. Friend is turning his attention and we shall do our best to provide some improvement.
    Sir C. Osborne: How much of the increased cost is due to wages?
    Mr. Corfield: That is actually another question, but, for the information of my hon. Friend, the London rate for craftsmen rose from 4s. 10½d. in February, 1959, to 5s. 10½d. in February of this year.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that when he puts his last Answer side by side with the Answer to an earlier Question, it will reveal that the effect of Government policy on council houses has been that we have fewer of them; each one contains fewer square feet, and each square foot costs more?
    Mr. Corfield: Of course, when building costs go up, the square footage costs rise. Despite the lower total area, the size of rooms has been maintained throughout.

    Owner-Occupation
    Mr. M. Stewartasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what new steps he will take to assist people desiring to become owner-occupiers of their homes.
    Sir K. Joseph: I have no proposals to put forward at present.
    Mr. Stewart: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be in a position to make proposals? Is he aware that the rising prices of houses is progressivaly making it more and more difficult for people who wish to become owner-occupiers, and that some sort of policy is needed?
    Sir K. Joseph: I think that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has said that my predecessor had turned his attention to the question of productivity in the building industry. I think this is a sphere to which we could look, together with standardisation, to secure lower costs.
    Mr. MacDermot: Will the Minister undertake to look into the question of leasehold enfranchisement at an early date? Is he aware that this aspect of owner-occupation has become increasingly urgent as the leases fall in?
    Sir K. Joseph: I am sure that in my capacity as Minister for Welsh Affairs I cannot possibly avoid this very important and urgent matter.

    Building Programme
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, in view of the 400,100 marriages in Great Britain last year, what is his estimate of tine total number of homes which will be built in England and Wales during the next two years.
    Sir K. Joseph: What matters for housing purposes is not the number of marriages, tout the net increase in the number of households. This is about 100,000 a year. The current rate of building is nearly three times that.
    Mr. Allaun: Will the Minister go to see the film, "A Kind of Loving"—
    Mr. Lipton: The Prime Minister has seen it
    Mr. Allaun: —in order to appreciate bow many marriages are ruined because young couples today cannot find homes of their own? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figures he has given do not cover the net increase in households, plus the requirements needed to deal with slum clearance and overcrowding? Is he aware that the best solution to the problems confronting council house tenants and owner-occupiers would be low interest rates for housing loans?
    Sir K. Joseph: I do not accept the panacea offered by the hon. Gentleman, but I share his passionate concern about the need to try to find some way to increase the rate of house building, bearing in mind the fact of the already fully stretched resources of the building industry.
    Mrs. Castle: Will the Minister look into the policy of the French Government in this respect and note what an important part very low interest rates for housing play in the much bigger programme in which the French are engaged?
    Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to draw attention to the lessons which we can learn from abroad. On my arrival at the Ministry I was presented with all the studies which have been made at the request of my predecessor so that I may be able to consider them.

    Improvement Schemes
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will encourage local authorities to extend the new proposals for improving houses without baths, hot water or inside toilets, by loans to landlords or by compulsory acquisition of certain houses not part of a scheme for a whole area.
    Sir K. Joseph: The use of the powers available to local authorities for both these purposes will be dealt with in a circular which I am sending to them.
    Mr. Allaun: I understand that this circular goes a little way towards meeting the proposals of the Public Health Inspectors Association for area improvement schemes, but why not apply the same limited form of compulsion to individual houses which badly need improvement grants? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that persuasion has failed, since only 23,000 private landlords used the grants last year?
    Sir K. Joseph: I do not accept that persuasion has failed here. It is a problem where we meet reluctant tenants as well as reluctant landlords. I hope that the circular will be a help.

    Low-Rented Accommodation, London
    Mr. Parkinasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what new steps he intends to take to assist the provision of low-rented accomodation for large families in the London area.
    Sir K. Joseph: Housing authorities already have the necessary powers and resources to provide acommodation for large families at low rents, whether by building new dwellings or by the purchase of existing ones.
    Mr. Parkin: Will the Minister treat this very important problem in a category by itself? Will he initiate some inquiries to find out how far, as I believe to be the case, the chances of rehousing large families are in fact diminishing rather than increasing, how far local authorities have varied in their enthusiasm for using the powers they have, and what new powers may be desirable?
    Sir K. Joseph: I am reluctant to promise new inquiries because they might simply overload staff who are already busy trying to tackle the problem. Within that limitation, I will certainly do what the hon. Gentleman requires. I believe that the absolute numbers of large families are relatively small, but I am not denying the misery for those concerned.
    Mr. Parkinasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will initiate a survey to provide a fresh estimate of the number of people required

    625
    in essential services in London for whom low-rented dwellings in the central area are a necessity; and what steps he is taking to influence planning developments so that unskilled industries in the London area are replaced by a wide range of small units employing skilled craftsmen.
    Sir K.. Joseph: I am not aware that an estimate of this sort exists nor do I think it would be profitable to attempt to make one. The decentralisation of all forms of industry is a major objective of the planning policy for London.
    Mr. Parkin: Did the right hon. Gentleman notice that the figure announced yesterday for the earnings of the mythical average manual worker far exceed the wages brought home by many of the people engaged on the essential services of London? Does he agree that we need either a new wages policy or a new housing policy if we are to accommodate these people where they are required? Will he get the confirmation or his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour through the local youth employment officers that there is a grave shortage of opportunities of skilled employment in London for the product of the new education system?
    Sir K. Joseph: I do not accept that there is an inadequacy of opportunities for skilled labour in London. There are many factors here. I ask the hon. Member to bear in mind one of them, namely, that in many households more than one wage comes in.
    Mr. Grimond: As the Minister has spoken of the Government's intention to decentralise London, may I ask him if the Government have any plans for moving any Government offices out of London?
    Sir K. Joseph: The Government have in fact set quite a good example in moving out of London.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Have they not also set an example by moving into London, for example at Earls Court and at State House?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, but a large number of Government Departments have moved their offices out of London.

    Houses (Conversion)
    Mr. Callaghanasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if, with a view to the introduction of the necessary legislation, he will discuss with local authorities the adequacy of their powers to engage staff with a view to examining" houses to ascertain whether they have been converted into flats.
    Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. I am satisfied that if a local authority needs to engage stall for such work for the purpose of any of its functions it already has adequate powers to do so under Sections 105, 106 or 107 of the Local Government Act, 1933.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is there much evidence outside the area in which this dispute has arisen about the lack of knowledge of local authorities of the conversion of houses into flats and thereby the consequential loss of revenue?
    Sir K. Joseph: I do not think so, but I am a little intimidated in this question about giving a verbal answer because there are a number of legal obscurities involved. I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Popplewell: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a general shortage of qualified staff for this purpose? Will he give the matter very serious attention with a view to increasing the staffs of local authorities to help them to assist in this vary valuable work?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes.

    ROYAL COMMISSIONS
    Mr. Wyattasked the Prime Minister what plans he has for recommending the setting up of new Royal Commissions between now and the end of this year; and what subjects will be covered.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I shall announce to the House any proposal to recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission in the usual way and at the appropriate time.
    Mr. Wyatt: Is the Prime Minister aware that he has been setting up these Commissions and Committees at the rate of over one a month over the last year to decide upon things which are properly in the Government's sphere to decide upon? Will he give an assurance that he is going to drop this practice in future, unless he has decided to govern entirely by Royal Commission and dispense with Cabinet Government, which might be a convenience to him at the moment?
    The Prime Minister: I would rather not speculate about any future advice which I might tender to Her Majesty on the matter of Royal Commissions, but I should like once more to pay my tribute to those who have been good enough to give their service upon them.

    HOUSE MORTGAGES (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at Leicester on 7th July last about house mortgages represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Lipton: Does the Prime Minister know that his right hon. Friend's admission that the Government had no definite plans to make house purchase easier was greeted with bleak dismay by the general public and that it helped to put the Conservative candidate in the by-election at Leicester, North-East at the bottom of the poll? In these circumstances, why did he not sack the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster as well? It might have made all the difference.
    The Prime Minister: This is a Question about the rate of long-term interest. Short-term rates have dropped and I hope that it is not unreasonable to expect that in due course the long-term interest rate may drop also.

    UNITED NATIONS (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
    Mr. Milneasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs about the United Nations on Friday, 13th July, at the annual meeting of the
    628
    General Council of the United Nations Association, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the General Council of the United Nations Association about the United Nations on 13th July represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech on 13th July by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the United Nations Association about the United Nations represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The speech was a forceful exposition of our support for the United Nations and a statement of our disquiet at some of the tendencies which we discern in the Organisation.
    Mr. Milne: Does the Prime Minister realise that this speech represented a marked improvement on the one made at Berwick-on-Tweed on 28th December? Will he note that in the course of making this speech the Foreign Secretary said, comparing the United Nations with the League of Nations of pre-war days, that he did not want to see another great idea destroyed by short-sighted attitudes? Will he bear this in mind?
    The Prime Minister: I will pass to my noble Friend the tribute which the hon. Gentleman has paid him.
    Mr. Prentice: Although the speech contained some formal declaration of support for the United Nations, does not the Prime Minister think that the part which was bound to be repeated throughout the world was the sanctimonious lecture to the newer countries on their double standards? Cannot he persuade the Foreign Secretary to drop this attitude? Does he think that this kind of talk about double standards is convincing from a Government who supported the Suez operation?
    The Prime Minister: I think that it is very important, if the United Nations is to do its task successfully, that it should try to keep within its own rules.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Is not the Prime Minister aware that the Foreign Secretary's persistent attacks on the great

    629
    majority of the nations of the world represented in the General Assembly because they demand an end to colonialism shows how completely out of touch with the modern world he is, and that the Prime Minister's attempts to give the Government a more attractive preelection image by a surgical operation will fail so long as he keeps this nuclear Neanderthal at the Foreign Office?
    The Prime Minister: The best thing I can do is try to put the hon. Member in touch with his hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne).
    Mr. P. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the majority of the nation thoroughly welcomed the plain speaking and frank expression of honest criticism of the United Nations and would wholly deplore it if this country were automatically to support actions of the United Nations in places like the Congo which are aimed at suppressing freedom?
    The Prime Minister: I thought that the Foreign Secretary gave a good and balanced account of the whole situation.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Does the Prime Minister agree with the extraordinary statement made by his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) that the United Nations intervention in the Congo was in the terms which the hon. Member described? Would he not make it plain that Her Majesty's Government support the United Nations' attempts in the Congo to maintain peace and to secure a proper settlement?
    The Prime Minister: We are very anxious Chat this matter should be settled within the terms of the resolution by peaceful negotiations and not by warlike action.
    Mr. Shinwell: While declaring personally that the United Nations should not regard itself as immune from criticism, may I ask whether the real complaint against the Foreign Secretary is not that if he feels disquiet about the activities of the United Nations, the best place in which to express that disquiet is at the General Assembly?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. He has done that and I have tried to do it.

    FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE (QUESTIONS)
    Mr. Jayasked the Prime Minister what opportunity will be available to hon. Members to address questions to the First Secretary of State.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer the right horn. Gentleman to the Order of Questions circulated with the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons, Number 146.
    Mr. Jay: Will the Prime Minister make it clear on which of the subjects for which he is responsible the First Secretary is willing to answer Questions? Will he bear in mind that though the First Secretary's answers seldom mean anything at all, we should be very sorry not to hear them?
    The Prime Minister: I know that the gentleman in Whitehall knows best, but my right hon. Friend knows quite a lot.
    Mr. Gaitskell: In that case could not the Prime Minister tell us in which sphere of knowledge he will specialise?
    The Prime Minister: There is another Question on the Order Paper about that matter.

    NUCLEAR TESTS
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister whether he will publish the conclusions emerging from the latest discussions between United States nuclear scientists and the British scientists led by Sir Solly Zuckerman and Sir William Penney as to the feasibility of discovering and identifying, not only all nuclear test explosions in the atmosphere and undersea, but also minor underground explosions, from monitoring systems situated outside the territories of the nuclear powers.
    The Prime Minister: I made a full statement on these discussions on Tuesday in reply to Questions by the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson). I have nothing to add at this stage.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Is it not a fact that leading American and British scientists in this field have indicated that methods already exist for the detecting and identifying of tests through monitoring systems situated outside the territories of the nuclear Powers, and would it not be desirable to publish the conclusions reached by this conference of scientists? Is not the public entitled to know just where we stand in this matter?
    The Prime Minister: I have placed in the Library the statement made by the Department of Defence. This shows that further progress has been made in work on which the scientists have been engaged for a long time. I hope that this may facilitate all that we hope for, which is a final and comprehensive treaty.
    Mrs. Castle: Will the Prime Minister tell us whether he has yet sent more than a mere acknowledgement to the letter which he has received from Professor Don Leet offering to co-operate with British scientists in his method of detecting underground tests?
    The Prime Minister: All this information is available to both the British and American scientists.

    HOUSING, SCOTLAND
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister, in view of the need for expediting the progress of housing in Scotland, if he will appoint a Minister who will have no other duties but planning a housing drive for Scotland.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware of the tremendous problem of housing which still faces Scotland? The City of Glasgow at present cannot hope to solve its housing problem for 20 years and even in enlightened counties like Ayrshire newly married couples have still to be on the waiting list seven years. Does he not think that a new drive should be organised?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, but this is a question about whether a special Minister should be appointed, and I do not think that that is the right method.

    MINISTER OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister to what extent the new Minister of Public Building and Works will have responsibility in Scotland.
    The Prime Minister: To the same extent as in England and Wales.
    Mr. Hughes: Does this mean that new housing powers will be given to the new Minister? What is the meaning of his assurance that this would mean some kind of new housing drive in England? Does that apply to Scotland?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I hope that all the efforts of the Ministry of Works which are now available to the Secretary of State for Scotland will be directed to assist him.

    FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE AND MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO
    Mr. Grimondasked the Prime Minister what are the duties of the First Secretary of State and of the Minister without Portfolio.
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State will act as Deputy Prime Minister and will retain responsibility for the Central African Office and continue to lead the Ministerial group charged with the oversight of the Common Market negotiations.
    My right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio will be responsible for the co-ordination of the Government information services at home and has the responsibility normally carried by a member of the Cabinet who has no Departmental duties.
    Mr. Grimond: What exactly are the functions to be attached to the office of Deputy Prime Minister? Like the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), I attach great importance to hearing the replies of the First Secretary. Will he answer questions addressed to him as Deputy Prime Minister? As for the Minister without Portfolio, is it

    633
    simply his job to conduct Government propaganda at home and, if so, is this a suitable charge on public funds?
    The Prime Minister: In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, my right hon. Friend will answer Questions addressed to me in my absence. He will also deal with the special questions to which I have referred, particularly those of Central Africa. In reply to the second part of the question, successive Administrations have found it necessary to co-ordinate the Government information services, and this will be done on the home front by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Lipton: Does not the Prime Minister realise that the official appointment for the first time in British consti tutional history of a Deputy Prime Minister represents a damaging admission on the Prime Minister's part of his own inadequacies?
    The Prime Minister: This is not an appointment submitted to the Sovereign but is a statement of the organisation of Government. It follows a very high precedent, for it was exactly the arrangement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) when Sir Anthony Eden was appointed Deputy Prime Minister.
    Mr. P. Williams: Will the Prime Minister answer about the rôle of the Deputy Prime Minister in relation to his task as Chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Common Market negotiations? Does that mean that he will now be answering on Common Market affairs rather than the Lord Privy Seal?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think that it would be more convenient for the Lord Privy Seal to continue, but this is a statement of the very important task which my right hon. Friend the First Secretary has undertaken for some time past.
    Mr. Marsh: Can the Prime Minister hold out any hopes to the House and the country of the possible promotion of the Deputy Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: If I were not so anxious not to offend the Leader of the Liberal Party, I might say, "Wait and See."

    TRADE AND COMMERCE West Fife
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the President of the Board of Trade how many jobs are likely to be provided in West Fife in the current year as a result of the Local Employment Act; and how many jobs will be lost in the same period.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): It is estimated that over 550 jobs have arisen or will arise in 1962 in the Dunfermline group of employment exchange areas from new building and other developments approved or assisted by the Board of Trade. I understand that about 250 jobs have been or will be lost in this group of areas during the year as the result of closures and redundancies.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that in one village alone, the village of Kelty, there will be lost in the next two or three years two pits which employ between them about 1,700 men and that there are no immediate prospects of one single job to replace those 1,700? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what further steps the Government have in mind to redress the balance?
    Mr. Erroll: I am aware of the seriousness of the situation which the hon. Member has mentioned. In reply to what further steps are to be taken, I ask him to await the debate on Scottish industry and employment which is to take place today.

    Cotton Garments (Merchandise Marks)
    Mrs. Castleasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to amend the Merchandise Marks Act so as to ensure that all cotton garments sold in Great Britain are marked with the country of origin of both the garment and the cloth.
    Mr. Erroll: I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion for consideration in the light of the recommendations of the Molony Committee.
    Mrs. Castle: Has not waiting for Molony become a Ministerial disease? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that

    635
    this kind of action, taken now, is urgently needed to help to restore confidence in Lancashire? Is he aware that merchants are making large fortunes by importing grey cloth which, when processed, does not have to carry the mark of origin and certainly does not have to carry it when made up into a garment, so that the British consumer who wants to buy British textiles is not able to identify them? Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman take action immediately?
    Mr. Erroll: Because it seems sensible, having appointed a Committee to go into the matter, that we should await a" study of its recommendations.
    Mr. Jay: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect that this Government will still be in office when the Molony Committee reports?
    Mr. Erroll: Yes, Sir. I have every hope of that.
    Sir C. Osborne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that much of this grey cloth, of which hon. Members from Lancashire complained, is produced by the work of Commonwealth citizens?— [Interruption.]— How can hon. Members opposite want to prevent them from earning a living when they want them to be allowed into this country as immigrants in unlimited numbers?
    Mr. Speaker: I think there was a question underlying that noise. I do not know whether the Minister desires to answer it.
    Mr. Erroll: I have made a note of the question which was put.

MISS CARMEN BRYAN (DEPORTATION ORDER)
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. FLETCHER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he has considered the case of Miss Carmen Bryan, a Jamaican girl of 22 years of age living in this country since 1960, who, having pleaded guilty to a first offence of petty larceny involving goods valued at £ 2, was conditionally discharged, recommended for deportation by the Paddington Magistrates' Court on 12th June, and has since been
636
detained in Holloway Prison; and whether, in view of the assurances that the power of deportation under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, was not intended to apply to cases of petty larceny, he will refuse to implement the magistrate's recommendation for deportation.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): With permission, I will now answer Question No. 65.
I cannot trace any assurances given in the terms suggested by the hon. Member. Most careful consideration has been given to the circumstances of this case, but no sufficient grounds have been found for deciding not to act on the recommendation which the court thought it right to make. A deportation order has accordingly been signed.
Mr. Fletcher: Is the Home Secretary aware that when we debated the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill most specific assurances were given that deportation orders would not be made in the case of Commonwealth immigrants for relatively trivial offences and the powers sought were for only serious offences? Does he realise that this girl was conditionally discharged, she has been in Holloway ever since and has had no access to any legal advice for over a month and no communication with the Jamaican High Commissioner? [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Is it the intention of the Government to treat Commonwealth immigrants, as regards deportation, worse than aliens and to use their powers in respect of trivial offences of this kind— on a first offence?
Mr. Brooke: I should like to assure the House that I intend to take very seriously my duties when I receive recommendations for the deportation of Commonwealth immigrants. As to this case, no Home Secretary could treat shoplifting as a trivial offence— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]— considering how prevalent it is at present in London. [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."] I am not sure whether the hon. Member is aware that Miss Bryan has addressed a petition to the Home Secretary in which she says that she does not want to stay in this country, that she wants to go home as soon as possible, and that she has no objection to being deported.
Mr. Fletcher: I am aware of that petition. Is the Home Secretary aware that it was addressed because this young lady was told that it would be impossible for her to appeal and that if she appealed she might be sentenced to imprisonment and then deported, and she obviously preferred to go back to Jamaica than to face the prospect of spending the rest of her life in Holloway Gaol?
Mr. Brooke: It is for her to decide whether or not to appeal. I certainly regret the time she has remained in prison. The reason for that was that this was one of the first cases, if not the very first case, of a recommendation for deportation under the now Act. It bad to receive specially careful consideration an that account. Miss Bryan has been out of work for a number of months. She is anxious to go as soon as possible. I think it would be a great act of injustice if I ware to stand in the way of her returning to Jamaica [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
Mr. G. Brown: Is the Minister aware that what he has just said is an affront to the feelings of hon. Members in all parts of the House and will be felt very severely outside? As one of his first jobs in his new Ministry, will he not say that he will look into this again? Is he not aware of the words his predecessor used in the course of the passage of the Bill, which certainly made it quite unbelievable that this kind of case would be regarded as suitable for deportation? Is he not aware that this young lady has been kept, as he says she has, incommunicado for quite a time and has been able to have no consultation with advisers? Does he not feel that this is a shocking business? Will he not offer to the House an undertaking to look at it again?
Mr. Brooke: No, Sir. I am not prepared to look at this case again. [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."] I do not understand the allegations that she has been kept incommunicado. She has, in fact, addressed this petition in which she says that she has no objection to being deported. Her one complaint was that she was being retained in this country for so long—
Mr. Manuel: In prison.
Mr. Brooke: Arrangements have been made accordingly for her to leave this country on Saturday.
Mr. G. Brown: If she wants to go, why does she have to be deported? Why should she not be just released?
Mr. Brooke: She has said that she has no objection to being deported.
Mr. Grimond: If the Home Secretary were put in gaol in a foreign country in similar circumstances—
Mr. Emrys Hughes: A good thing if he were.
Mr. Grimond: —would he not apply to leave the country? Does he accept the facts as stated? Does he also accept that a specific undertaking was given to the House that deportation would not be used for cases of this sort? If he accepts both those things, how does he reconcile his action with them?
Mr. Brooke: I cannot accept that shoplifting is a trivial offence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."] Once a Home Secretary were to do that it would encourage and not discourage it. I am very sorry indeed that this young Jamaican woman has been detained in prison. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. No benefit is derived by anyone from shouting in this way. Let there be order.
Mrs. Braddock: Will the Home Secretary tell us what "conditional discharge" means? In view of the fact that the case was tried by the magistrates and a conditional charge was given, will he explain exactly what it means? If he does not, I can do so.
Mr. Brooke: The magistrates also recommended her for deportation. [An HON. MEMBER: "Answer the question."] It was in accordance with that recommendation that she was detained in prison.
Mrs. Braddock: Do I take it that the Minister does not know what a conditional discharge is? Will he tell the House what a conditional discharge means?
Mr. Brooke: This young woman pleaded guilty. She was conditionally discharged and recommended for deportation.
Mr. G. Brown: Does the Home Secretary think that what he is doing is in keeping with the words used by his predecessor? I quote them from HANSARD of 7th February.
"The Clause makes it clear that the power can be operated only on the recommendation of a court following conviction of an offence which is punishable by imprisonment."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1962; Vol. 653, c. 515.]
This girl got a conditional discharge. Does not the present Home Secretary think that he is stretching those words beyond all reasonable meaning?.
Mr. Brooke: No, I do not. I have gone into this very carefully indeed, and I have given the House the assurance that in every such case I shall personally investigate the circumstances— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]— but I have no doubt in this case that the decision was right and that it was in this young woman's own interest.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Dugdale, a Private Notice Question.
Mr. Fletcher: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I shall seek your leave at the appropriate moment to move the Adjournment of the House on this subject.
Mr. Speaker: This is not the appropriate moment.
Later—
Mr. Fletcher: Mr. Speaker, I seek your permission to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9 on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the decision of the Home Secretary to deport Miss Carmen Bryan, a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, on Saturday next.
I submit, with respect, that there can be no doubt that this Motion qualifies under the Standing Order as being definite, urgent, and a matter of public importance. It is quite obviously definite, in that it refers to a specific order for the deportation of a named individual. It is urgent, because it relates to an order for deportation on Saturday next, which is two days from now. It is quite clearly a matter of public importance, because it involves not only the liberty of the subject but, in my submission, the
640
integrity and good faith of the Government.
Carmen Bryan is a young lady from Jamaica, who has been leading a respectable life in this country for two years. On 2nd June, the day after Part II of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act came into operation, she pleaded guilty to an offence of shoplifting, involving a sum of 40s. She was conditionally discharged and sent to Holloway Jail, where she still is, with a recommendation for deportation. She was not allowed bail, as the Home Secretary had the power to do—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows all these things so well that he will know that I have no right to allow him to make now the speech which he would make if he got leave to move. Perhaps he will let me have his Motion.
The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
The decision of the Home Secretary to deport Miss Carmen Bryan, a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, on Saturday next.
I am precluded by previous Rulings from accepting such a Motion today, which is the day on which the Guillotine of Supply falls.
Mr. G. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This clearly puts the House in a very considerable difficulty. The lady is about to be deported. It is a matter on which there is strong feeling here, and there will be outside. Would you permit me, Sir, to ask the Leader of the House, who has heard the exchanges, whether he will take some immediate steps with his colleague to arrange that this young lady is not deported until the House has a chance to discuss her case? She should not just go because our rules happen to prevent us from discussing the case this day. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that?
Mr. Speaker: I will allow the Leader of the House to answer, but I will ask the assistance of the House about this. We cannot have any regular debate now on the matter. It would put me in an impossible position.
Mr. J. Griffiths: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that you will sense that it is the desire of the

641
whole House that we should have an opportunity to discuss this case before Saturday. As you are precluded by the rules to which you refer from what I thought, if I may say so with respect, was your intention otherwise to accept the Motion today, can we take it that you will grant it between now and Saturday?
Mr. Speaker: No, and I should not like the right hon. Gentleman to make any such presumption, because I do not think that it is in my power to accept this Motion on its merits, if I could consider it on merits.
Mr. Macleod: Accepting that, as you say, Mr. Speaker, you are precluded by previous Rulings in this matter, I should like to consider what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said, and, no doubt, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will consider it.

PERU (BRITISH SUBJECTS)
Mr. Dugdale(by Private Notice)asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the safety of British subjects in Peru following the coup d'etat there.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas):Her Majesty's Ambassador at Lima has associated himself with a move by representatives of foreign Governments there to request the Military Government to issue a statement that they will protect the lives and property of all foreigners in Peru. No report has been received of any loss or injury having been suffered by any British subject in Peru as a result of the military coup.
Mr. Dugdale: Does that mean that British subjects are being protected? May I ask whether Her Majesty's Government associate themselves with the concern expressed by the United States of America at this grave blow at such democracy as there has been in Peru by military forces determined to prevent the election of a President who might possibly do something to help the position of the peasants?
Mr. Thomas: I do not think I can comment on that until the situation in Peru becomes much clearer.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 23RD JULY— Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
There will be a debate on Disarmament, until Seven o'clock, and afterwards on Coal Mine Closures, Redundancy and Unemployment in the North East.
Motion on the Greenwich Hospital the Travers' Foundation Accounts.
TUESDAY, 24TH JULY— Progress on the remaining stages of the Pipe-lines Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Exchequer Advances (Limit) Order, 1962.
WEDNESDAY, 25TH JULY— Conclusion of the stages of the Pipe-lines Bill [Lords], and of the Road Traffic Bill [Lords].
Motions on the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations, the Gas Boards and Electricity Boards (Rateable Values) Orders, and the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (South Africa) Order.
THURSDAY, 26TH JULY— Debate on the censure Motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
We propose to facilitate consideration of the Lords Amendments to the following Private Members' Bills:
Lotteries and Gaming Bill, and the Local Government (Records) Bill.
FRIDAY, 27TH JULY— Debate on a Government Motion to take note of the Report of the Iron and Steel Board for 1961.
MONDAY, 30TH JULY— The proposed business will be:
Committee and remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
There will be debates on Southern Rhodesia, and on the case of the

643
former Chairman of the Birmingham (Mental B) Hospital Management Committee, which it is thought may last for half a day, and be followed by subjects which hon. Members may wish to raise.
Mr. Gaitskell: Will the Leader of the House confirm that there will be a debate on the Pilkington Report and the Government's White Paper before the Recess, and can he tell us what form the debate will take? Will it be on a Motion, and, if so, what Motion? Will he also tell us when the next progress report on the Common Market negotiations will be made, and whether in this case also we can now be assured that there will be a debate before the Recess?
Mr. Macleod: Concerning the Pilkington Report, a debate will take place. It will be in the last week before the Recess, either on the Tuesday or the Wednesday. We would propose a Motion simply to take note of the Government's Memorandum. As to the position on the Common Market, perhaps I may give the House this information. The Lord Privy Seal will be in Brussels from the 19th, that is today, until 21st July, and also from 23rd July until about the 30th. My right hon. Friend would like to make a progress report to the House firmly on Monday, 23rd, that is next Monday, and, of course, another one after the next round, and that progress report will probably be on Monday, 30th July. As to the debate, there would be a possible day in the last week before the Recess, but perhaps we might have discussions on that after the first progress report.
Sir B. Janner: May I ask the Leader of the House whether, in view of the very serious statement contained in HANSARD in relation to the crime of genocide and our refusal to accede to the Convention, which we support so heartily, there will be an opportunity of discussing that matter and considering the reasons that have been given, which to many of us are very unsatisfactory? Secondly, in view of the statement on the probation service and the considerable amount of dismay it has caused regarding the rate of increase suggested in their wages— a despicable amount— will he give an opportunity to the House to consider this matter before the Recess?
Mr. Macleod: On the first matter, as the hon. Gentleman well knows because he raised it, my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal dealt with this yesterday and explained the reasons for the position that the Government take in this matter. There is no argument conceivable, of course, as to the objects of this. The question is simply whether it is possible for us to take the action which the hon. Gentleman suggests.
As to time to discuss the probation officers, and, indeed, other matters, there will be opportunities on Monday, 23rd July, and again on Monday, 30th July, when the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill is the business of the House. I would ask hon. Members, if they intend to raise such matters, whether they would be good enough to give notice to the Ministers concerned.
Miss Bacon: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Joint Undersecretary of State for the Home Department stated on Monday night that an Order was to be laid relating to probation officers' salaries and that the Government were going to compel them to accept a 2½ per cent. increase? May I take it that that Order will not now be laid before the Summer Recess?
Mr. Macleod: I am aware of the position concerning the Order, but it is certainly true that on the two occasions to which I have referred there could be an opportunity, if the hon. Lady so wished, to raise this matter.
Dame Irene Ward: Can my right hon. Friend say when the new Superannuation Regulations will be taken, and whether my Motion on Danger to Children's Lives—
That, in the opinion of this House, the failure of the Minister of Transport to support by any practical means the efforts of the Minister of Education to obtain from the Northumberland County Council a safe access by road provision for 1,600 school children to the new Whitley Bay Grammar School not only runs counter to the undertaking given by the Leader of the House on 7th May to the honourable Member for Tyne-mouth in accepting her Motion on Co-ordination, but in failing to act to give a first priority in road safety to children where the Northumberland

645
County Council repudiates its legitimate responsibility, accepts a grave personal liability; and this House is further of opinion that if parliamentary Government has to expose school children to unnecessary road hazards the time has come for a re-examination of the relationship between Parliament and local authorities which permits such a happening to exist—
will be taken a week on Monday on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
Mr. Macleod: I am not quite clear what my hon. Friend means by "Superannuation Regulations". If she is referring to the statement made by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury a day or two ago, it covers a very wide field. In due course it will involve the House in legislation, and there will be consequential action in many ways.
Dame Irene Ward: May I give my right hon. Friend information about this? I refer to the new Superannuation Regulations which require an affirmative Resolution of the House. It is on the Order Paper.
Mr. Macleod: I am still not clear as to which Regulations. In any case, they do not come into the business for next week. On the second point, it would be in order to raise such matters.
Sir B. Janner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask your guidance? Is it in order for me, in view of the remarks which have been made by the Leader of the House, to give notice that I propose, subject to your approval, to raise the two questions to which I have referred on the occasion of our defeating the consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member can give notice. How much this governs the matter, I cannot say.
Sir B. Janner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand, and perhaps I may have your guidance, how I am to give notice in view of the statement made by the Leader of the House. Do I give notice to him or to whom?
Mr. Speaker: I will talk to the hon. Member about it afterwards and think
646
out the best way of assisting him. We must get on.
Mr. Turner: May I ask whether there will be a statement on Greater Malaysia next week and, if not, before the House rises for the Summer Recess?
Mr. Macleod: I do not think that there will be a statement next week, but it is possible that there will be one before the House rises for the Summer Recess.
Mr. Diamond: Is the Leader of the House prepared to give time for consideration of a matter which has now become urgent, namely, the final stages of the Redundant Workers (Severance Pay) Bill? He will remember that it is a very short Bill providing monetary compensation to those who lose jobs through no fault of their own. Is the Leader of the House aware that there is a considerable area of unrest, and that those who have the good fortune to be holding down jobs at the moment do not know how soon they may be out of work? Will he be prepared to give very urgent consideration to this matter?
Mr. Macleod: I cannot, I am afraid, promise to facilitate any Bills beyond the two I have included for Thursday, 26th July.
Sir C. Osborne: In view of all the suggestions for debates in the next fortnight, is it to be assumed that the rumoured economic debate will not now take place? Further, can my right hon. Friend say on what day the House will rise?
Mr. Macleod: I have announced the business up to and including Monday, 30th July. There are then probably three days, not counting the day for the Summer Adjournment debates. One of those days is known to the House to be earmarked for a debate on the Pilkington Report, and another for a Welsh Affairs debate. There is, therefore, the possibility of a third day, but, as we know from what the Leader of the Opposition has said on Common Market and other matters, there are a number of claims for that one day.
Sir C. Osborne: When do we rise?
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Do the Government propose next week to issue the writs for Dorset, South, Chippenham, and the other constituencies, or are those voters not to be allowed to express their opinion on political events until Christmas?
Mr. Macleod: Anyway, not next week.
Mr. Hamilton: May I ask the Leader of the House whether there will be a free vote next Thursday? [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. My voice is not powerful enough to prevail. I ask for less noise.
Mr. Pavitt: Has the Leader of the House noticed that, of the 140 Early Day Motions now on the Order Paper, the Motion in the name of the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead), my own name and the names of hon. Members on both sides, has gained most support? Will he consider having a debate before the House rises on the Early Day Motion which has the most support, namely, the Motion dealing with the review of salaries of those in professions supplementary to medicine?
[That this House is concerned at the grave shortage of qualified audiological technicians, dieticians, occupational therapists, orthoptists, physiotherapists, and remedial gymnasts in the National Health Service and its effects on the
648
national economy; and calls upon the Minister of Health to appoint an independent committee to review and report upon the present arrangements for recruitment, retention, grading and remuneration of members of these professions in the National Health Service, and to make any recommendations considered necessary.]
Mr. Macleod: The hon. Member will recognise from what I have said that all this competition is really for one day's debating time. Quite clearly, in view of what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the Common Market, I could not respond to the claim the hon. Gentleman has made, but I must again remind him that there are two opportunities when these matters could well be raised.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock; and that if the first Resolution reported from the Committee of Supply of 18th July shall have been agreed to before half-past Nine o'clock, Mr. Speaker shall proceed to put forthwith the Questions which he is directed to put at half-past Nine o'clock by paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply).—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [26TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  REPORT [18th July]

  SUPPLY
    IVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1962–63; MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1962–63; NAVY ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1962–63; ARMY ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1962–63; AIR ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1962–63, NAVY EXPENDITURE, 1960–61; ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1960–61; AIR EXPENDITURE, 1960–61
    Resolutions reported,
    CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1962–63
    1. That a sum, not exceeding £7,078,200. be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1963. for Expenditure in respect of the services included in the following Civil Estimates, viz.:—

    CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1962–63
    £

    Class III, Vote 2B. Scottish Home and Health Department (Revised Estimate)

    1,193,100

    Class VI, Vote 13B. Scottish Development Department (Revised Estimate)

    1,579,100

    Class IV, Vote 1, Board of Trade

    4,306,000

    Total

    £7,078,200

    2. That a sum, not exceeding £218,008,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963. for Expenditure in respect of the services included in the following Civil Estimates, viz.:—

    CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1962–63
    £

    Class IV, Vote 7, Ministry of Aviation

    154,900,000

    Class IV, Vote 8, Ministry of Aviation (Purchasing (Repayment) Services)

    19,000,000

    Class IV, Vote 9, Civil Aerodromes and Air Navigational Services

    5,750,000

    Class IV, Vote 3, Board of Trade (Promotion of Local Employment)

    22,259,000

    Class IV, Vote 6, Ministry of Labour

    16,099,000

    Total

    £218,008,000

    CLASS I
    3. That a sum, not exceeding £58,143,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Civil Estimates.
    CLASS II
    4. That a sum, not exceeding £91,056.000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Civil Estimates.
    CLASS III
    5. That a sum, not exceeding £88,939,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Civil Estimates.
    CLASS IV
    6. That a sum, not exceeding £207,142,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963. for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Civil Estimates.
    CLASS V
    7. That a sum, not exceeding £255.850,000. be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Civil Estimates.
    CLASS VI
    8. That a sum, not exceeding £1.504,456,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Civil Estimates.
    CLASS VII
    9. That a sum, not exceeding £104,268,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Civil Estimates.

    CLASS VIII
    10. That a sum, not exceeding £3,434,997, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year
    651
    ending on the 31st day of March 1963, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Civil Estimates.

    CLASS IX
    11. That a sum, not exceeding £83,478,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 963, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IX of the Civil Estimates.
    CLASS X
    12. That a sum, not exceeding £4,757,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class X of the Civil Estimates.
    CLASS XI
    13. That a sum, not exceeding £47,807,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class XI of the Civil Estimates.
    MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1962–63
    14. That a sum, not exceeding £12,280,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Defence: expenses in connection with International Defence Organisations, including international subscriptions; and certain grants in aid.
    NAVY ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1962–63
    15. That a sum, not exceeding £285,194,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services.
    ARMY ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1962–63
    16. That a sum, not exceeding £281,320,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services.
    AIR ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY AIR EXPENDITURE, 1962–63
    17. That a sum, not exceeding £149,020,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services.
    NAVY EXPENDITURE 1960–61
    18. That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £9,989,092 3s. 6d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Navy Services for the year ended 31st March 1961, to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet deficits in receipts not offset by savings in expenditure from the respective Votes as set out in and temporarily authorized in the Treasury Minute of 13th February 1962 (H.C. 114) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 210).
    ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1960–61
    19. That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £4,675,101 5s. 7d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Army Services for the year ended 31st March 1961, to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet deficits in receipts not offset by savings in expenditure from the respective Votes as set out in and temporarily authorized in the Treasury Minute of 16th February 1962 (H.C. 127) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 210).

    AIR EXPENDITURE, 1960–61
    20. That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £497,875 1s. 3d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Air Services for the year ended 31st March, 1961, to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet deficits in receipts not offset by a saving in expenditure from the same Vote as set out in and temporarily authorized in the Treasury Minute of 19th February, 1962 (H.C. 120), and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 210).
    [For details of Resolutions, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1962; c. 553–63.]
    First Resolution read a Second time.

  SCOTLAND (INDUSTRY AND EMPLOYMENT)
  3.58 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: I beg to move, to leave out "£7,078,200" and insert "£7,077,200" instead thereof.
  In opening this debate, I naturally begin by offering our congratulations to the new Secretary of State for Scotland on taking on what I do not think he will find a very easy job. In doing so, I should like to express to his predecessor our condolences, and also our regret that for some time past his own life has been clouded by personal anxieties and difficulties. I also offer my congratulations to the President of the Board of Trade on surviving.
  When someone who is only half Scottish intervenes in a Scottish debate an explanation is clearly called for. In my case, I say at once that I intervene in today's debate not because there is any need for someone who is not fully Scottish on these benches to come in and lend a hand. The new Secretary of State will soon find out, if he does not know already, the temper of the Scottish Labour hon. Members. I do so partly because I have some personal associations with Scotland—my mother was Scottish, as I think most hon. Members know—and partly because all of us, whether we are Scottish, English or Welsh, are concerned about the state of affairs in Scotland. If we are not, we certainly should be—all the more because this state of affairs cannot, in my view, be solved wholly on a Scottish basis.
  I would go so far as to say that the convention that only Scottish hon. Members take part or even listen to these debates is, perhaps, something that should be reviewed. I am not sure that it would not be a good thing if a greater number of English and Welsh hon. Members listened to Scottish debates, for they might learn a little more about the situation in Scotland and be even more enthusiastic in pressing on English Ministers the necessity for more vigorous action.
  I approach this problem, nevertheless, as an outsider. I have not, I cannot, have the day-to-day personal constituency experience of hon. Members
  654
  who represent Scottish constituencies. I look at it from outside, but it may not be a bad thing to have at least one speech of this kind. I must say, recollecting the last occasion on which I had the honour to speak in such a debate two years ago, that comparing the picture then with the picture today I find it depressingly similar. Very little has happened to cause any considerable improvement in the industrial and economic situation in Scotland in these past two years.
  I begin with unemployment. The last figure, for June, 1962, was 72,143. The figure last year was 59,000. So we have had in these last 12 months an increase in unemployment in Scotland of about 13,000. It is today, broadly speaking, at the same level as it was two years ago. If one looks at the longer table of figures showing the relationship of unemployment in Scotland to unemployment in the rest of Great Britain, the figures vary a little from area to area but, by and large, they remain obstinately the same.
  While Scotland has some 10 to 11 per cent. of the total population, its unemployment share is 18 per cent. If one compares, for example, not just the unemployment figures but the way in which they have been changing lately, there is little room fox satisfaction. It is true that in recent months there has been some slight decline in unemployment, but it is less than the seasonal decline. The change, for example, between March and April of this year was a reduction of 1,106. The seasonal reduction—that is, what should have happened—was a figure of 4,200. For April and May the reduction was 2,572, while the seasonal reduction should have been 4,200. The reduction between May and June was 3,274, but seasonally it should have fallen by 5,100. So there is little comfort for us in these more recent figures.
  If we turn to the ratio of persons out of work to jobs available, the contrast between Scotland and Britain as a whole shows that until recently for every job in Scotland there were four people out of work looking for it, whereas in Britain as a whole the figure was about equal. Today the position is slightly worse than that, because it is five out of work in

  655
  Scotland for every job available, while there are fewer than two out of work in England for every job available.
  Mr. Ernest Popplewell: While my right hon. Friend is quoting the English figures, will he make a differentiation between the figures for the north-east of England and the rest of the country, because the figures for the North-East are comparable with those for Scotland?
  Mr. Gaitskell: My hon. Friend is perfectly right, but there is to be a debate on unemployment in the North-East and I think that today, if my hon. Friend will allow me, I will contrast the position in Britain as a whole with the position in Scotland, leaving it to my hon. Friend and others to deal with the point he raised next week.
  These figures of unemployment showing the contrast of unemployed in relation to vacancies need to be reinforced by three other sets of facts. It is still the case that there is a steady movement of population out of Scotland every year. Over the decade it has averaged about 25,000 a year, but in the Quarterly Return of the Registrar-General for Scotland, for the quarter ended 31st December last, it is stated:
  "The natural increase in population during the year ended 30th June, 1961, was 37,600 and the estimated net migration loss was 34.200 of which it is estimated 25,900 was to other parts of the United Kingdom and 8,300 abroad."
  If one adds that to the amount of unemployment one gets a figure of very nearly 100,000 persons. That is what we have to think of. That is what we have to contend with.
  Another figure which must be brought into the picture is the way in which there has been over the last five years a steady decline in male employment in Scotland. This has fallen from 1,606,000 in 1956 year by year to 1,554,000 in 1961.
  On top of all this there is something else which must be borne in mind. The standard of living of a country or an area is not only dependent on the level of wages and the number actually out of work; it is also dependent on the proportion of the total population employed in gainful employment. In other words, there are some areas where one will find far more wives and women generally at work and far less in other
  656
  areas. Professor Wilson, who was one of the members of the Toothill Committee, gave an estimate in a recent article. He said that if what he called the "Scottish participation rate"—that is, the proportion of the total population engaged in gainful employment—could have been raised in 1959 to the average for Britain, it would have involved another 90,000 workers at work in Scotland.
  This is some indication of the general position that still obtains and has obtained all these years while the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have been in power.
  What are the consequences of this obvious, indeed deplorable lack of balance in our British economy? First, there is the sheer waste involved—the sheer waste in unemployment, the sheer unhappiness caused by people being unable to get jobs and the sheer unhappiness caused by the fear of unemployment, always the greater when the level of unemployment is high.
  Then there are the consequences to the rest of the country. This state of affairs in Scotland carries with it a steady flow of persons southwards to England, to the South and East and to the Midlands. And what happens when they get there? They add very substantially to the housing problems in the Midlands, London and the south eastern areas. Inevitably they increase the traffic congestion, and it is not altogether too fanciful to say that when we are considering the problems of the homeless in London and the Midlands, although one does not ascribe them to people coming down from Scotland, it is fair to say that this lack of balance in the development of the economy is one of the factors underlying that particular tragedy.
  There is also the inevitable effect that such movements of population and overcrowding in the South-East have upon land prices. Indeed, unless we take control of this situation—and what I am saying now applies not only to Scotland but to the whole problem of the location of industry—we are going to get into a state of affairs when the greater part of our population will be confined in an oblong shape running from the north-west Midlands down to the South-East. Already the expert town planners call it the coffin, because it is shaped

  657
  like a coffin, and it is up to us to see that we do not get incarcerated in this way.
  There is one other argument to which I personally attach a good deal of importance, and it is this. We have had to contend in this country over the past years—it is almost a continuous problem —with the difficulty of achieving industrial expansion without inflation. One difficulty that arises from this is that as we expand in the areas of the Midlands and the South we run into shortages of labour very quickly, and because of those shortages of labour various inflationary tendencies are created.
  If, instead of that, the demand, so to speak, could be spread out over the whole country so that the reduction in unemployment took place at the same level everywhere, we would be able to have a good deal more expansion without having the fear of inflation constantly upon us. Therefore, there is every argument—human, planning and economic —in favour of trying to correct the lack of balance which has plagued Scotland and indirectly plagued the rest of the country all these years.
  Behind all this difficulty lies something else, and that is the low rate of production increase in Scotland. Quite rightly the Toothill Committee put its finger on this and has said that what is wrong is the lack of growth in Scotland, for if we have the growth we shall almost certainly have the employment as well. Indeed, the figure is a depressing one. If one contrasts the British record, say, between 1954 and 1961 the industrial production increased by 20 per cent. It increased in Scotland by 11 per cent. One has to remember in quoting these figures that the British rate is the worst but one in Europe. The Scottish one, therefore, is far below this.
  It is true that in the last couple of years, in 1960 and 1961, Scotland expanded faster than England. The Scottish rate of industrial production went up 2 per cent. in those years, while the British rate went up by only 1 per cent. All we can say is that the only occasion when Scotland does a little better than the rest of the country is when the rest of the country is doing extraordinarily badly.
  I submit that these facts are alone a crushing indictment of Tory policies and
  658
  Tory rule over these years. Whatever they may have done, they show that no real impact has been made upon the problems of Scotland's economy. They show, indeed, that these policies have been what can only be described as an utter and complete failure. During the last few years we have had the addition of one Minister of State and one Undersecretary of State for Scotland, almost doubling the total force on the Scottish Front Bench—an increase from three to five. I can only say that I do not think that the two additional Ministers have earned their salaries.
  What is the reason for the failure? In my view, it is essentially because the Government have neither planned nor carried out a plan to deal with the situation. After virtually neglecting the whole problem prior to 1958, when they did not really operate the development area Acts which were on the Statute Book, and broadly speaking allowed firms to go wherever they liked and gave very little inducement to firms to set up in these development areas, they then, and particularly after 1959, began to make some effort. None of us would deny for a moment the value of such things as the new strip mill, the B.M.C. works at Bathgate or the other works at Linwood. Certainly some jobs have been created. Nobody denies that, and I dare say that we shall hear again this afternoon that there are a lot more jobs "in the pipeline". I think right hon. Gentlemen opposite have pipelines on the brain.
  The point—and it is very simple—is that it is no use talking about creating some jobs unless we relate these to the jobs which are disappearing. This is what has been happening and this is the reason for the failure. If the jobs had not disappeared the new jobs created by Government action would have had their impact on the unemployment figures, but they have not done so. What is needed is to set targets in relation to what is likely to happen—in other words, to estimate the losses of jobs that are likely to occur, to take them into account, to plan accordingly and to carry out one's plan.
  What are the prospects? I must say, looking at the "Report on Industry and Employment in Scotland", that it is difficult to feel particularly optimistic.

  659
  I turn to the part entitled "Developments affecting the future" and to the chapter dealing with "Productive Industry". Under "Engineering and electric-cal goods", the Report says:
  "But since the prospects are that investment in plant and machinery in the United Kingdom will be little higher than last year, the rate of increase in the output in Scotland is likely to be less than it was in 1961—unless there is a sharp increase in production for export markets."
  On "Shipbuilding and marine engineering", paragraph 165 says:
  "… the outlook for the shipbuilding and marine engineering industries in Scotland, as in the United Kingdom as a whole, is still far from promising."
  The paragraph dealing with "Metal goods not elsewhere specified" states:
  "The immediate prospects for this group seem somewhat doubtful in view of the fall in their production in 1961…"
  On the question of steel, the Report is rather surprisingly a little more optimistic. Seeing that the steel industry is working at only 60 per cent. capacity in Scotland, it would indeed be a very gloomy thing if we were to expect something worse than that.
  Under the section dealing with "Textiles, leather and clothing", the Report describes the outlook as "not bright". Under "Food, drink and tobacco", it says:
  "… there is little ground for expecting any marked increase in activity."
  Under "Bricks, pottery, glass, cement, etc.", it says:
  "The outlook … depends to a very large extent on the available markets for refractory goods and building bricks. For the latter there is little prospect of any increase …"
  Under "Timber, furniture, etc.", the Report says:
  "… the outlook appears more settled than for some time, but the level of output is low."
  This is a pretty gloomy prospect which the new Secretary of State faces. Behind all that is the concern which we all feel at the prospect in the coal mining industry, and I should now like to say a few words about that industry. We recently had a statement from the former Secretary of State as to what the Coal Board thought was likely to happen. The Coal Board has carried out a survey, and none of us questions the need for that. On the contrary, it is the sort of thing
  660
  which ought to be done so that we can get some idea of what is likely or might happen.
  To what does it all amount? It amounts to this, that whereas already the manpower in the mining industry in Scotland has fallen by some 20,000 in the past four years and is now down to 62,000, this is going to be further reduced first of all by the absolute extinction and disappearance of the collieries in Class C—the ones where the physical conditions necessitate closure—where indeed some 8,000 jobs will be lost; then, if out of the 16,000 in Class B, that is to say, the collieries about which there is uncertainty, the future of which will depend on the economic situation, we take 4,000 workers—certainly not an unduly pessimistic figure—this means that by 1966 there will be no more than about 50,000 miners in Scotland.
  Can this be stopped? Naturally, this is the first question we must all ask ourselves. Clearly, there is nothing one can do about loss of jobs as a result of purely physical decline. We all know that for some years there have been pits, particularly in Lanarkshire, Which have been going out. The jobs disappear with the coal. Moreover, I do not think that one can expect the National Coal Board, given the market situation which it faces, fox Which it is not responsible, deliberately to produce coal in more expensive rather than cheaper ways. This may seem hard to people who live in Scotland, but I feel bound to point it out. We must put ourselves in the position of the Board. I do not see how one could justify producing coal where it was more difficult to get it when it could be produced where it was easier to get it.
  There seem to me to be two alternatives when one considers the Class B group of collieries. We may find—this is something to which the Government must give urgent attention—that the closure of collieries in this group would create very grave social consequences, that it would involve creating derelict areas, villages and towns, and that we could not tolerate these consequences. If that be so, and it is the view of the Government that those consequences must be prevented, there is a clear responsibility upon them to pay the Coal Board to keep the collieries going,

  661
  in other words, to pay a subsidy. It is not reasonable to expect the Coal Board for any length of time to produce in an uneconomic manner because the Government cannot think of anything else to do with the labour which is available.
  I do not believe that this is in the least a satisfactory solution. It may be necessary in some cases. It may be necessary for a short period. It may be —I do not want to press the point too far—that arrangements can be made with the Coal Board for it to sustain the inevitable losses over a short period.
  The way out is clear enough. Alternative jobs must be provided for the redundant labour. This must be done not as a sort of last-minute afterthought. It must be done as part of a proper plan to take into account the reduction in employment created by colliery closures, known in advance, with the Government seeing to it that the new factories and other places of employment are available at the time, as and when collieries are to close. The time to plan is now. It is no use waiting. This is something which must be done from now onwards.
  This leads me to the broader questions of policy in relation to Scotland as a whole. I say to the Government and to the new Secretary of State, for heaven's sake stop being quite as complacent as Ministers have been on this subject in recent years. Complacency is really defeatism for it implies that one can do no better, that one is satisfied with present circumstances. Also, Ministers must stop attacking those who think it their duty to put forward the facts. I have read all the debates and, in my view, there has been far too much in the way of reproaches passed upon anyone who says that something ought to be done. What does the President of the Board of Trade and his colleagues expect the Opposition to do? Is it not our job, as indeed it is his job, to realise what is wrong, to point it out, and to say what should be done?
  When we say that the situation is very unsatisfactory and that there has been no improvement, as there has been no improvement—the figures show it— we are not decrying Scottish industry, we are not decrying the skill of Scottish workers, we are not creating a bad atmosphere. We are simply drawing attention, the attention not only of Scot-
  662
  land but of Britain as a whole, to the facts and demanding that action shall be taken. Let us have no more of this nonsense. Let the Government accept that they have not solved the problem. If they start from there, they will, I think, get a somewhat better response from this side of the House.
  I will give an example of what I mean. In the Report on Industry and Employment in Scotland there are several references to the "record" level of production in 1961. A man who talks about the record level of production in 1961 because production has gone up a bit although at an appallingly slow rate shows that he does not understand the first thing about growth. If one is interested in growth, one does not speak of a record just because one year is a little bit up on another. One speaks about records only when the pace of advance is much greater than it has been. Pace is what matters. There is an unpleasant similarity between these constant references to the record year of 1961 and the Prime Minister's famous remark, "You have never had it so good". Anything that is at all better, better than the year before, is regarded as satisfactory. That is the implication, but it does not do, especially in regard to Scotland.
  In these Reports, instead of presenting us with a plain report about what has happened and an account of what is expected to happen, the Government should do something else. They should not write and speak as though the situation was beyond their control, as though such and such had happened and they are telling us that something else will happen. They should give us targets and compare the targets with what they have achieved. This is the kind of report which we shall expect from the Secretary of State next year. He can tell us what he is trying to do and how far he has succeeded. He may not succeed, but at least he would give the impression of trying if he were to set it out in that way instead of giving us this, so to speak, descriptive report which is all we have now.
  I urge the Secretary of State to set himself definite targets. Here are some. They are vary much the same as those put forward by the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) which recently

  663
  visited the farmer Secretary of State. Let him bring unemployment in Scotland down to 40,000. That would be at about the British percentage level. Another 30,000 jobs would have to be found in Scotland on that account. Bring the migration down to, say, 5,000. Some people would say that it ought to stop altogether, but I do not go so far as that. The movement of 5,000 one way or another would be so small as not to be worth bothering about.
  Give Scottish industry the same target as the National Economic Development Council has given for Britain as a whole, 4 per cent. per annum. That is not a great deal to ask. Indeed, this is the figure now not for industry but for the whole economy. For industry it will almost certainly be higher. But I should be content for the moment if the Secretary of State were to accept 4 per cent. per annum increase for Scottish industry. Next, the Secretary of State should work out, on the basis of these targets, the number of new jobs which are likely to be needed, bearing in mind, of course, the number of existing jobs which will disappear.
  These are not unreasonable proposals. If they were to be set out and accepted as targets, with everyone working towards them, this alone, I believe, would make a tremendous difference to the atmosphere.
  I believe, strange as it may seem, that one of the factors which determines the rate of industrial expansion is the expectations of the industrialists. Therefore, if we set them a target which is not wholly unreasonable we have a better chance of getting there. If that applies to England, as I think it does, it can perfectly well apply to Scotland. I have not worked out the exact number of new jobs to be provided by the Government, but the Scottish Council on industry has done so. Does the Secretary of State accept the figures which the Council has put forward? I think that they suggest that he will have to find 15,000 jobs a year for the next eight years. Is that right? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that? If not, where is it wrong, and what does he suggest as an alternative?
  It goes without saying that was is planned for Scotland must be linked with
  664
  what is planned for Britain as a whole. We have a National Economic Development Council, which is supposed to have, or was going to have, a plan for Britain. Can we be assured by the Secretary of State that within that plan there will be a regional plan for Scotland?
  Having set the plans and targets and worked it all out, it has to be implemented. It cannot be implemented by the Secretary of State alone. What happens in Scotland depends in the last resort on what happens in the country as a whole. Unless we get expansion in Britain, we shall not get much expansion in Scotland. The easiest way to get firms to go to Scotland is to expand, and then they will be much more likely to go there because they will not be able to get workers anywhere else. There is, therefore, an overwhelming case for general expansion for the sake of Scottish industry.
  There are specific measures which should be taken. There must be a tougher I.D.C. policy in London, the South-East and the Midlands. There must be a more vigorous policy of inducements to firms to go to Scotland. Let us have no more talk about direction of labour and direction of industry. No one has ever proposed this. Of course, we cannot direct labour in peace time, and no one suggests that we can. We cannot direct industry if we mean by that that we compel people to make losses. It is no use thinking in those terms. What we want is something that can be done, namely, to be extremely tough in refusing to allow people to set up in areas of full employment and be extremely generous, if that is the right word, in giving inducements to them to set up in areas like Scotland. That is a practical policy and it can be carried out.
  Very belatedly, and after a great deal of pressure from this side of the House and encouragement from the Toothill Committee, I believe that the Government have conceded that there is some case for building advance factories. I believe that a couple of them have been built or are being built, but we could have a very much bigger programme of this kind.
  There are some very interesting specific proposals in the Toothill Report

  665
  about the financial inducements which might be offered to firms. I should like to know what the Government think of those proposals. Do they commend themselves to the Government? If not, what else can they suggest? There is undoubtedly the special problem of the shortage of skilled labour which might arise in Scotland when there is still unemployed unskilled labour. That points to the need for a very special policy of training in Scottish industry.
  All of this must be associated with the right social policies. Here, I propose to refer to one matter only, but it is a matter of supreme importance, namely, housing. Two years ago, I referred to the state of affairs in Glasgow, and I do so again today. I propose to give the figures for housing in Scotland on 30th April this year which have been made available to me by one of my hon. Friends. This is the picture which is presented. Almost half the houses in the City have only one or two rooms and over 400,000 people living in them. In Central Glasgow, two-thirds of the houses are only one- or two-roomed houses. Thirty-four thousand people live more than four persons to the room, and 90,000 people live more than three persons to the room. Just over half of Glasgow's families have a bath in the house. Therefore, just under half have no bath in the house. Over one-third of them share a W.C. In the Gorbals, only one family in five has a W.C. in the house and only 3 per cent. a bath. This is today, 1962, not 1862, and this is allowed to go on.
  The late lamented Minister of Housing and Local Government, who has departed from the Government Front Bench—[Interruption.] I have a certain affection for him. I was about to say that we can at least say this of him. Before he left office, he discovered that there were slums in Liverpool. I think that the Secretary of State might pay a visit to Glasgow and look at the slums there.
  All this, of course, might be justifiable or, at any rate, there would be some excuse for it if in recent years every effort had been made to get rid of these conditions—in other words, if year by year the number of houses being built in
  666
  Scotland was increasing. But, unhappily, exactly the opposite is the case. I am sure that my hon. Friends know these figures all too well. Nevertheless, I cannot forbear from quoting them. In 1955, 34,000 new houses were completed; in 1958, 32,000; in 1960, 28,500; and in 1961, 27,230. Year by year, the number has declined, and the decline is most marked in local authority housing, which alone can deal with the problem of Glasgow's slums.
  In 1955, 24,000 local authority houses ware built; in 1958, 22,000; in 1960, 17,000; and in 1961, 16,800. The fall goes on. In the first quarter of 1961, 4,026 local authority houses were built and, in the first quarter of 1962, 3,333. At this rate, at the end of the year we shall be down to about 13,000 local authority houses. This is really disgraceful; there is no other word for it. It is really intolerable that people should be compelled to go on living in these conditions while the number of houses built which alone can relieve them is falling year by year. This must be put right.
  The people of Scotland have their own culture, their own characteristics, their own beautiful country and their own skills. They have contributed a great deal to Britain, to the Commonwealth and to the world, but it is a sad fact that decade by decade, as a proportion of the people of Britain, their numbers are falling. In 1801, over 160 years ago, Scots people made up 18 per cent. of the combined population of England and Wales. By the middle of the century, the figure had fallen to 16 per cent., and by the end of the century to 13½ per cent. It has fallen decade by decade ever since until in 1961 it was down to 11½ per cent.
  The question is whether this process is to continue year by year, decade by decade. If so, Scotland will cease to count effectively. This is something that we do not want to happen. We would regard it not only as bad for Scotland but bad for Britain as a whole. It must be stopped and it can be stopped, but that can only be done by policies totally different from those which have hitherto been pursued by right hon. and hon. Members opposite. They cannot solve the problem on the basis of their

  667
  philosophy. Although I wish the Secretary of State well and although we hope for the best, I do not disguise from him my foreboding that he is unlikely to solve this problem, and that it is unlikely to be solved until we have a new Government with new men and new methods.
  4.40 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Noble): In the last two years, my longer speeches in the House, begging to move that we should adjourn, have been greeted quietly but often, I believe, with pleasure and relief by hon. Members. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for showing courtesy, understanding and, I almost felt, sympathy for the task that I have in hand. I am confident also that his hon. Friends have some of the same feelings—perhaps for the last time in a debate in this House.
  The Leader of the Opposition has painted a picture of the Scottish economy which is serious enough. I do not in any way deny that this is the case, or that the people of Scotland do not have grave cause for anxiety. Old firms like the North British Locomotive Company prepare to close their doors, the shale industry in West Lothian approaches its end, and coal mines in several areas of Scotland, according to the National Coal Board's assessment last week, are becoming uneconomic. These are grim enough items in the Scottish account, and I will be no party to any attempt to bury them in easy phrases.
  Unemployment generally in Scotland has increased within the last twelve months by, according to my figures, 12,000, and the rate has remained persistently twice as high as the Great Britain level. The fact that this has been a major preoccupation of all parties for generations does not lessen its vital importance, and the first pledge that I freely offer as Secretary of State is that I shall strive with all the energy I can command to help abolish this grim distinction between Scotland and England. In any such endeavour, I know that I can count on the good will at least of all parties, for in the long view this is a matter which leaps over all boundaries.
  668
  Taken at its face value, this unemployment picture would be deeply disturbing, but I have tried to take a look behind the scenes to see what else is also happening to find out whether there are things to encourage us. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I do not do this in a spirit of trying to paint a rosy picture or to gloss over anything that is bad. Just as I accept that the Opposition have a perfect right, if they desire, to point out all the bad things that they see, so I regard it as my job to try to attract new industry to Scotland; and if I can find things that I consider genuinely right to point out to do that, I shall say them.
  I know that the whole House will join with me when I say how much I regret the departure of my predecessor as Secretary of State. For many years, he has been battling with the tremendous task of laying new foundations for the national economy, foundations on which I hope I may have the good fortune to be able to build. In good times and in bad, my right hon. Friend has worked with one single purpose in mind: the good of Scotland. He has often had a rough time in the course of our debates and that is not an unusual feature of Scottish discussions. I think, however, that hon. Members opposite would agree that he has throughout retained the respect and affection of us all. [An HON. MEMBER: "And of the Prime Minister?"]
  I am delighted that my right hon. Friend is still with us, and I am glad also to have the assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, who has been doing so much for Scotland at home and abroad, and my three Undersecretaries to help and advise me.
  It is common ground among all of us that what Scotland needs is capital re-equipment. This applies both in the older industries which have a promising future—and there are many of these— and in the newer industries based upon newly-developed knowledge, skills and techniques.
  When I come to take a preliminary look at the industrial scene, I find four significant places where development can be seen well under way. The first is in the construction industry, that part of our economy on which we are dependent for the building of factories, and so on.

  669
  In the year 1961, the year which we are reviewing, the volume of work was up 10 per cent. on the previous year, beating the figure of 6½ per cent. for the corresponding increase in the United Kingdom as a whole. In the past, we have taken pride in such victories. In the future, we will strive to set the English a target which they will find hard to beat.
  Even more recently, at the end of March this year, 8 million square feet of factory space was under construction and 5 million square feet had been approved for building. This suggests that the target of 7 million square feet per year proposed by the Scottish Council is within our reach and that at least some of the factories which we need so badly are going up.
  The second of my inquiry points was directed at industrial plant. An impressive figure is recorded on page 39 of the White Paper which is before us. In the four years 1958 to 1961, expenditure on plant and machinery was £269 million. The 1961 figure was at least 57 per cent. up on 1958. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman said about using this sort of figure.
  My third point was an inquiry into the balance of employment in expanding and contracting industries. This is, perhaps, the most important thing for a proper understanding of the processes which are now at work in Scotland.
  The present evolution of Scotland's industrial economy comprises two opposing movements—on the one hand, the development of new industries and the expansion of some of our existing industries; and, on the other hand, the contraction of a few of our traditional industries. While such contraction creates difficulties, it is inevitable when the industrial pattern is being changed to meet the changing pattern of demand.
  Just to study the figures can itself be misleading, because a new job in a developing and expanding industry is of much greater human importance than a job where the employee is looking over his shoulder and wondering when his industry may be forced to close. But too often so much emphasis is given to the contraction as to create the quite wrong impression that Scottish industry is showing little signs of life.
  670
  To show how wrong that impression is, let me quote some figures. Between mid-1959 and mid-1961, the main groups of industries Chat reduced their total employment did so to She extent of 37,000. This is a big loss, I agree, but against it the main groups of new and expanding industries increased their total employment by no less than 72,000. On balance, therefore, there were 35,000 more jobs in the middle of 1961 than there were two years earlier. For manufacturing industry only, the corresponding figures show a net gain of 28,200.
  I know that the figures are not as good in the current year, but I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, who asked me to comment on the target, that the fact that in the two previous years we were able to come up to the target suggested by the Toothill Committee gives me confidence that if we work hard, we can do it again.
  Mr. Thomas Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in 1957 and 1958 the net reduction in the number of jobs was mo less than 48,000? Therefore, it is not surprising that there was some upturn after that tremendous fall.
  Mr. Noble: As I tried to say earlier, I am not in any way attempting to disguise bad things which have happened in the past. What I am hoping to do is to reach the target which the Toothill Committee has set for us, and reach it soon.
  The Scottish Council, in its recent Report, made a similar appraisal, and went on to say:
  "The picture during this period is not that of an economy rushing downhill to disaster; it reflects the vigorous efforts made by all sections of the community producing new industrial growth sufficient to outweigh the inevitable decline in some of the older established industries."
  Fourthly, I sought to find out what Scottish industry itself was doing. Too often it is said that industrialists in Scotland are not doing enough to help themselves and that the real growth arises only from the incoming firms. This is simply not true. Our established Scottish industries in 1959–61 provided about three-quarters of the new jobs in manufacturing industry. This is not to minimise the great value of the new firms, to which the right hon. Gentleman

  671
  referred, but simply to get our facts straight.
  May I now look more generally at the whole picture. I should like to refer first to the Report of the Toothill Committee on the Scottish economy. This Report has made a substantial impact both inside and outside Scotland, and its emphasis on economic growth has now become widely accepted as being of the greatest importance to our economy. During the past few months the Scottish Council has itself been considering the Report and has decided that some of the recommendations can most suitably be followed up by the Council itself in conjunction with the other bodies concerned. Thus a number of recommendations which in the Council's view mainly affect, for example, the local authorities, the universities, the trade unions and bodies representative of management and employers, will be dealt with in this way.
  Of the recommendations affecting the Government, those which have attracted most attention, because of their undoubted interest and importance, are the proposals which, broadly speaking, concern distribution of industry policy. The Toothill Report has, in fact, been one of a number of factors which have drawn attention to the contrast between the rapid development taking place in the already congested areas in the South and Midlands—the coffin, to use the right hon. Gentleman's lugubrious phrase— and the position in Scotland. The issues here are fundamental and a lot of new ground has to be broken. In the meantime, I can assure the Committee that a policy of controlling the issue of industrial development certificates to firms wishing to expand in the labour shortage areas—a point which the Scottish Council raised last week—will be rigorously maintained.
  The Scottish Council, in its interview last week, laid great emphasis on the importance of defining more precisely the inducements we have to offer under the Local Employment Act, which was also stressed in the Toothill Report, and referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. This is a difficult problem. I myself admit frankly that I do not know the answer to it, but I will discuss it urgently with my right hon. Friend the President
  672
  of the Board of Trade, in whose province it lies.
  The Toothill Report also contains a range of other recommendations of a very varied nature which concern a considerable number of Government Departments—a not unusual feature in Scotland. A detailed statement of the Government's views on these recommendations is being prepared for the Scottish Council and this statement will be made available to hon. Members.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: When?
  Mr. Noble: Quite soon. Among the recommendations which will be dealt with in this statement are those relating to education and training, housing, and transport and communications, in so far as these have been referred to the Government. The House will, I hope, excuse me if I do not attempt to go through them all in detail this afternoon—a great many hon. Members wish to speak, and our time is short—but a few comments may be helpful.
  We are in general sympathy with all the educational recommendations which have been submitted to us; we are also in broad agreement with the housing recommendations endorsing the need to pursue the housing programme intensively where the need is greatest—I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is great in Glasgow—and to encourage private house building for the supervisory and management grades. We have announced this week the decision that the 50 per cant. derating which industry now enjoys will not be withdrawn in 1963.
  The Toothill Committee's investigation into the transport of goods was particularly valuable, and I think that it has done much to lay one of the ghosts which may lurk in the board rooms of potential developers. It concluded that, while manufacturing industry in industrial Scotland may be at some disadvantage in this matter, the significance of transport costs has, in its view, been exaggerated. Such costs are only one factor to be considered in choosing the location of an industry and in most new industries they may be quite small relative to the cost of the product. In all cases they may be offset by other considerations such as lower rents, availability of

  673
  labour, and the proximity of good port facilities, and so on. I am not surprised at this conclusion since in my travels this spring round the United States of America—where distances are enormous —I heard no industrialist mention transport costs by themselves as a serious handicap.
  What the Committee considered was a more important factor is the difficulty which distance sometimes imposes in obtaining supplies without delays and uncertainty. I have heard very little criticism of our Scottish ports, and we have been giving high priority to the improvement of access to them. On roads the Scottish Grand Committee has recently debated our road system as a whole,and we can now foresee in the next few years communications between our industrial belt, the Midlands, London and even the Channel ports being fully up to modern standards.
  So far as railway communications are concerned, the review which Dr. Beeching is making of the services provided by British Railways should be completed about the end of the year, when it should be possible to begin an assessment of the future of our railway system. It is quite clear, however, from what he has said that the new British Railways Board will be eager to become competitive with other forms of transport and will improve railway freight services where it is possible for them to provide an efficient, quick and reliable service to manufacturers.
  We are all anxious about the risk that considerable lengths of railway line in country areas may be closed entirely. Until the Beeching reviews are completed, no one can properly assess this risk. I can, however, make it quite clear that where a railway closure is the right course in the long run, we will ensure that it is not carried out in such a way as to leave an area bereft of adequate facilities for transport of passengers or freight.
  It is clear from all that the Toothill Report said—as it is from day to day knowledge of the Scottish industrial scene—that we have an enormous task ahead in building up new industries, and this will make large calls on our capital resources. These, in the nature of things, cannot be unlimited, and must be concentrated where they will do the most
  674
  good for the Scottish economy in the long run.
  In seeking new industry we must make sure that the advantages we have to offer are as widely known as possible. To my mind they are space and manpower. By contrast with some other parts of Britain there is more than enough space available in Scotland to accommodate all the industrial development we could want—and it need not be only in the Forth and Clyde Basin. There are Dundee and Aberdeen and many country areas, including the Highlands, where sites and good labour axe waiting for development. We do not want to spread congestion in our central belt and produce our own national coffin through lack of foresight. To bring space and labour together we have the overspill arrangements for rehousing, in the new towns and other industrial growing points throughout Scotland, the 300,000 surplus population of Glasgow who are bound to be displaced from the city over the next twenty years as the clearance and redevelopment of its congested and obsolete central area proceeds.
  Manpower is, I think, our major asset; it is today perhaps the scarcest commodity in Western Europe. We must use it effectively, and that means training and technical education. These in themselves cannot provide jobs, but they can help people to do their jobs better, and thus create conditions for securing the greater productivity and efficiency which are essential to the growth which has been mentioned so often.
  Education authorities, with the support of the Government, have embarked on a major building programme to the value of over £22 million designed to provide a network of new and improved technical colleges up and down the country. We shall see many new centres coming into use over the next few years. Many local authorities have, with the encouragement of the Government, offered to help industry with its training problem by providing first year apprenticeship courses.
  What can industry do for itself? Firms, I suggest, can look at their own training arrangements. Are their young workers getting effective instruction on the job? Is it supplemented by an

  675
  appropriate course of study at a local technical college? There can be no question of firms saying that they cannot afford to train. In the long run, they cannot afford not to.
  I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has laid claim to the Scottish blood which flows through his veins, and that he stressed throughout his speech the feeling, which I believe is genuine among Members on all sides of the House, of wanting to try and help in getting the right answer for Scotland. I am a Scot, and I am conscious of the fact that I belong to a resourceful and imaginative people. We have come through 'bad times in our history with our colours flying so proudly that people have been forced to take note of us. It is not to be forgotten that, once before, when the old commercial fabric of Glasgow collapsed, the Glasgow merchants created a new industrial structure based on one of the great rivers of the world—which they themselves had formed out of a Lowland stream. And Edinburgh men once determined to build a new city for themselves, and produced a capital famous for its architecture, its learning and its art. Enterprise is natural to the Scots. I believe that it can be brought back into the very centre of Scottish life and thinking once again. This, at any rate, is what I covet.
  I believe that a beginning has been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrew to the laying of a foundation on which a new industrial renaissance can be built. But it is only a beginning. I believe that the Government now can create confidence and by vigorous and immediate action trigger off, when world conditions permit, a fresh surge forward. But the Government by itself cannot command the success we need.
  I have shown, I hope, earlier in my speech the great part that Scottish industrialists and business men have in fact played in developing their side of our national life in the last two years. I assure them of the Government's knowledge and appreciation of what they have done, and would encourage them to do even more in the immediate future. Time is not on our side. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] This is very true.
  676
  New ideas, new capital and enlightened management, with good labour relations, must become even more conspicuous. The Scottish trades unions, which have equally made a most useful contribution, have an important part to play, too. If I read the signs right there is a real willingness of many of their leaders to streamline and modernise their ideas, and so earn the respect of their members and of Scotland as a whole.
  Local authorities are sometimes forgotten in the context of industry, and yet, with their planning powers—including the provision of industrial sites, and in special cases of factories, too—their housing duties, and their general responsibilities for creating an attractive environment, they have a major part to play. Speed in decision and action is no less important from them than it is from the rest of us.
  I have tremendous faith in the people of Scotland—the men and women whose work has shown that "Made in Scotland" can be a real selling point in world markets. If we in the Government can give them the technical colleges and the training facilities to equip them fully for the new industries, as well as the best of the old, we need fear no lack of craftsmanship. But we need to ask more still from them. We need to provide the opportunities first, but then to inspire our younger generation with the feeling that there is still a great adventure for them. In this age, it is not necessary to cross the seas or even the English border. Their adventure lies at home—to rebuild a Scotland of which they and their children will be justly proud.
  5.7 p.m.
  Mr. John Strachey: Like my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, I should like to offer my sympathies to the departing Secretary of State, especially in his personal difficulties and problems. I should also like to join in my right hon. Friend's congratulations to the new Secretary of State. I am bound to say, however, that what I think we on these benches want to be able to do is not only to congratulate the Secretary of State, but to congratulate Scotland; and, so far, I must tell him that he has given us very

  677
  little evidence in his speech of anything on which we can congratulate Scotland because of his appointment.
  His speech seemed to me to be most agreeably read. I can say that for it, but, apart from that, it appeared to me to fulfil the worst predictions and forebodings of my right hon. Friend, when he said that he hoped that this speech would not be purely descriptive. It was purely descriptive. There was no hint of action in it of any sort that I could find, and I say to the Secretary of State that if he is to find a measure of acceptance on these benches for his future speeches there will have to be a little more meat in them, in the sense of proposals, and some suggestions of action, than in the speech which we heard today.
  Quite frankly, in my remarks, I shall address myself mainly to the problems, and they are very acute problems, which my own constituency of Dundee faces. They are examples of the problems which Scotland as a whole faces. No great city of Scotland, such as Dundee, can possibly face these problems except against the background of the general problems which face Scotland. I ask the Secretary of State to realise the impact which recent announcements about the contraction of the heavy industries of Scotland, above all, coal mines and railways, have had. It is true to say that Scotland has been aghast at these announcements, and at the prospect which they bring up for the large industrial areas of Scotland, which are still so heavily dependent on heavy industry. My constituency in Dundee is not one of these. It is not essentially a heavy industry town. It is today a textile and engineering town, and, for that reason, it has been comparatively lucky. I say, quite frankly, that it is not at the moment facing as high a degree of unemployment as many other areas of Scotland. Still, we are already facing very severe problems, and we are rather suddenly faced today with a problem which may affect what is still our major industry of jute most acutely.
  I refer to the position of the jute industry if we enter the Common Market. If the jute industry of Dundee faced sharp contraction as a result, then, piled on top of all the other blows which Scotland has suffered, and the impact of which
  678
  Dundee must share to some extent, it would prove a terrible blow to the city.
  Speaking in the House almost exactly a year ago, I said on the subject of the Common Market and the prospect of the jute industry in Dundee that I was by no means an unconditional opponent of entering the Common Market. Nevertheless, I said then and I repeat today that our entry can be supported only if industries such as the jute industry, which are highly concentrated in one particular place, have safeguards provided for them —if our negotiators make the opposite side in the negotiations with whom they are dealing in Brussels realise the intense human problem which would be occasioned by any sharp contraction in this industry. I know nothing of the way in which the negotiations for the jute industry may be going. It may be that they have scarcely begun. But I have tried to make it my business to understand Dundee opinion on both sides of the industry and to discover what Dundee feels is the prospect.
  Sir James Duncan: This applies not only to Dundee but to the district around it, too.
  Mr. Strachey: I am glad that the hon. Member made that point because it is not only Dundee which is affected, although he will agree that it matters more to Dundee even than to his constituency or to other neighbouring constituencies. But the whole district of industrial north-eastern Scotland is concerned.
  As far as I understand it, the position of the industry in respect of entering the Common Market must be considered in two phases. If we enter the Common Market there will presumably be a transitional phase. We must expect that our negotiators will not plunge the industry, without years of warning time in which it can adapt itself, into the full effects which would otherwise arise from joining the Common Market. However, in that transitional phase the fact must, I suppose, be faced that the existing jute control would gradually be dismantled.
  I will not attempt to detail the protective devices which in effect give a mark-up or tariff of more than 20 per cent. to the industry. These are what are above all in question, because they give a protective tariff in excess of the

  679
  common tariff of the Six. If all these devices were progressively dismantled, the position, even in the transitional years, would be very serious for the industry, because I am informed that about 40 per cent. of it would be vulnerable to this reduction in protection—40 per cent. of the production and roughly 40 per cent. of the labour employed.
  If and when that transitional period came to an end, I suppose about the end of the decade, in the 1970s, unless something further were done the industry would depend wholly upon the common tariff upon jute goods which, broadly speaking, today is about 23 per cent. By that time it might be lower. There is no guarantee that the common tariff on jute goods will not be lowered in the meantime, and this will be still more serious. But even with that 23 per cent. degree of protection against Asiatic jute goods, the position would be very grave indeed. There would be no protection at all against European-produced jute, but I do not much complain of that; it might have serious effects but I think that the industry can be asked to stand up to that competition. But with only 23 per cent. protection against Asiatic goods, the position in the industry might be very serious indeed.
  I should have thought—it is only a forecast but it is widely snared in Dundee —that some 20 per cent. of the industry and 20 per cent. of the employment might close down, and that would mean an additional 3,000 unemployed workers in the city. Some hon. Members on these benches and elsewhere will say that that is perhaps not an enormous number of unemployed compared with some areas of Lanarkshire, for example. But this comes on top of a prospect which we in Dundee view with a good deal of concern even without this blow. A most well-informed committee, set up by the Lord Provost of Dundee, in which the industries of the city, the chamber of commerce, the trade union organisations and the universities all co-operate, believes that by that time there may be a gap of 5,000 jobs; that on present prospects the unemployment level of the city will be at least 5,000 at that time. With a contraction of the jute industry of the size which I have indicated, the unemployment level would be about 8,000, which is a very sub-
  680
  stantial level of unemployment indeed and higher than it has been in Dundee since the war.
  This prospect of the Common Market and its effect on the jute industry, therefore, must concern us very closely indeed, and we must expect from whoever replies to this or future debates for the Government some assurance that they are doing their very best for this industry and that there is a sticking point on this industry, as on others, at which they will insist on the interests of employment in the area being safeguarded. Otherwise the prospect which we in Dundee face in this highly concentrated industry—and, in part, in neighbouring cities, too—is very serious.
  This problem is the same as the problem in other parts of Scotland. What dismayed me about the Secretary of State's speech was that there seemed to be no positive attempt to suggest the kind of measures for which he would be pressing within the Government on behalf of Scotland. For years we on these benches have been told, for example, that the question of advance factories was a sort of King Charles's head on our part; that we were attaching much too much importance to it and that there were great objections to advance factories. In the closing weeks of the late Secretary of State's régime this was changed and we were told that advance factories were, after all, a good idea. This shows the reluctance with which the Government move to take any positive action. This is because they seem to be governed in this problem by what is fundamentally a laissez-faire philosophy. They have shown no signs of recouping the necessity of positive Government measures adequate to meet the situation.
  The Distribution of Industry Act very largely became a dead letter in Dundee. The very office of the Board of Trade in Dundee was closed down in the middle 'fifties. Now the Government are beginning to use those Acts a little, but so much ground has been lost, so little has been done—so little has been prepared. On balance the position gets worse instead of better.
  Moreover, this special problem of the jute industry in Dundee haunts those of us who are and must be concerned with the industrial future of the city.

  681
  In addition, we feel that something far more positive is required of the Secretary of State—some recognition that the laissez-faire philosophy will not meet the problem of Scotland. This is the very least that we can demand.
  5.20 p.m.
  Sir Thomas Moore: We on this side of the House are very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition for the generous tribute he paid to our friend and colleague the former Secretary of State for Scotland. As we all know, my right hon. Friend has earned not alone the friendship but also the affection of everyone on both sides during his term of office. At the same time, we also thank the Leader of the Opposition for his welcome to the new Secretary of State, with whose ordeal today I deeply sympathise, for we have all experienced it in our time when making our first speeches either as new Members or in new positions. We promise the new Secretary of State our good will and our support and we wish him well.
  Several reasons have been given as to why the economic situation in Scotland is as it is. But in my view the fundamental cause of the present rate of unemployment, which unfortunately has lasted far too long, is that the Scots are by nature and tradition almost ultra-conservative. I admit that from the political angle the result of the last General Election and the recent result at West Lothian perhaps do not quite confirm that assumption, but apart from politics I believe that my analysis of the Scottish people's nature and traditions is correct.
  For far too long, as we all know, Scotland has relied too much on her heavy industries—coal, steel and iron production, shipbuilding, agriculture and the like. Of course, these industries have paid good dividends to the Scots in the past. But the trouble is that the Scots never seem to have foreseen that other types of fuel than coal might come into use; that other nations might build almost as good ships as ours and cheaper; that Scottish-built locomotives might not find the ready markets they had been accustomed to practically all over the world; and that diesel engines might also come into use.
  682
  The same applies right throughout our national industrial production in Scotland. It was a state of mind which did not equip our people for the advent of new and unknown industries. Successive Governments of both parties have gradually appreciated the fact, but in deference to my own party and its Ministers, I must say that it was left to the Conservative Government since 1951 to introduce measures definitely to convince Scotland that such light industries, as envisaged in the 1960 Act, might well prove its salvation.
  Of course, there were obstacles. Hon. Members opposite are not innocent of providing them. Certain speeches made by certain trade union leaders in Scotland have not been essentially helpful. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] There was the speech by Mr. Moffat two years ago which was a singularly unattractive gesture to English firms which might have been persuaded to come to Scotland for good, available and reliable labour. Indeed, certain Members of the Opposition—and I do not blame them for this—in their desire to berate the Government undoubtedly undermined the confidence of what I call English industrial settlers who would have been willing to come to Scotland had they felt it safe to do so.
  Mr. Archie Manuel: I am very desirous that the hon. Gentleman should prove his statement, quite apart from his slanders on trade union leaders. Can he name one firm debarred from coming to Scotland because of statements made in this House or by trade union leaders outside it?
  Sir T. Moore: Of course I cannot. I am not in the confidence of all industrial firms who might have thought of coming to Scotland but were put off from doing so by such speeches as the hon. Gentleman might make. About a year ago, during Question Time, there were 13 Questions by Members of the Opposition to the Government—"for goodness sake, give us help—gimme, gimme, gimme." How on earth would prospective industrial settlers from England appreciate that point of view?
  We have always held the view—and that, I think, includes hon. Members opposite—that Scotland can be relied

  683
  upon to provide labour, ingenuity and skill that English or any other industrialists might reasonably require. That is beginning to be realised, I admit, but the funny thing is that when a Scotsman comes to England, provided he retains a Scottish accent, he is regarded as sound, wise and reliable. But leave him behind in Scotland and very few people axe willing to come and test his qualities on his home soil We have to get over that attitude.
  I know so many of our workpeople. They are amongst the most highly-skilled and most reliable workpeople in the world. The sooner we all preach that gospel wherever we go the sooner we will be able to help our own country. Here I must pay tribute to the Scottish Council, which has done a magnificent job in informing British industrialists of the attractive opportunities awaiting them in Scotland. God speed it in its further efforts in this direction. It has done this work in conjunction with the Scottish T.U.C. which has a very powerful and important part to play in inducing or attracting new industries to Scotland. Provided that the Scottish Council and the Scottish T.U.C. work together, I am sure that success will come far more quickly than we expect.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would the hon. Gentleman go as far as to agree with the Scottish T.U.C. that it is essential to direct industry to Scotland?
  Sir T. Moore: I gather that the Scottish T.U.C. is rather in favour of this, according to some of the recent speeches, but it seems that the party opposite would be resentful of the direction of labour.
  One result of the Local Employment Act put through by the present Government is the new town of Livingstone, but there have been many other benefits. I wonder how many hon. Members have studied the Report of the Board of Trade for the year ended March, 1961. It said that £45 million were allocated to Scotland for various projects, including the setting up of new factories, as against only £23 million for England and £8 million for poor old Wales. Amongst other things, 153 projects were covered in Scotland—the same number as for
  684
  England—but there were only 50 projects in Wales. That does not look as though the Tories have neglected Scotland.
  Mr. John Rankin Mr. John Rankin (Glasgow, Govan) rose—
  Sir T. Moore: Not again. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make a long and powerful speech if he gets the opportunity to do so, and he should reserve his comments till then.
  I come now to the number of extra jobs created by this effort. We see that 34,000 extra jobs have been provided in Scotland, compared with 44,000 in England, although England is 10 times as populous as Scotland.
  A few weeks ago the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) asked my hon. Friend at the Board of Trade what progress had been made in the last two months in encouraging new industrial enterprises to go to Scotland. There have been so many changes in the last few days that I am not sure where my hon. Friend is now, and I am not sure whether to congratulate (him or not.
  Mr. Rankin Mr. Rankin rose—
  Sir T. Moore: Good heavens, not again! I do not propose to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  My hon. Friend replied:
  "In the last two months approval has been given for 31 projects in Scotland, estimated to give rise to some 3,300 jobs, almost all of them in development districts. In addition, some 16 firms new to Scotland have been shown possible sites, but it is too early to say whether any of these will set up factories in Scotland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1962; Vol. 662, c. 270.]
  That shows that the process is continuing.
  Mr. Rankin: What process?
  Sir T. Moore: Oh, my goodness, not again!
  There is, however, one point on which in all honesty I must criticise the Government. More research should be centred in Scotland because I believe that research is an indispensable adjunct to almost any kind of industrial development anywhere.
  Unemployment in Scotland is undoubtedly high. It is almost double what it is in England, but I wonder whether

  685
  anyone has considered the figures given in the United Nation's Report published the other day showing a comparison between unemployment in Scotland and abroad? Here are the facts. The average rate of unemployment in Scotland is 3·1 per cent. compared with 6 per cent. in Belgium, 4·7 per cent. in Western Germany, 7·7 per cent. in Denmark, 9·5 per cent. in Italy and 4·7 per cent. in the United States. Although the unemployment figure in Scotland is far too high, there is some consolation in knowing that other countries are in a worse position.
  The right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) referred to the effect on Scotland of our entry into the Common Market. I have been doubtful about whether Scotland would benefit. or lose by the United Kingdom going into the Common Market. I still have doubts, but I was comforted by the speech the other day of Lord Robens who said that Scottish, and indeed English, coal was the cheapest mined in Western Europe and therefore the National Coal Board had no fears about the advent of Britain into the Common Market. I gather from leading Scottish industrialists that they, too, have no great fears about the Common Market, and, as we know, there has always been a close link between Scotland and Europe, and especially France.
  I come now to more recent developments. My right hon. Friend referred to such projects as the steel stripmill, the British Motor Corporation's works at Bathgate, the Rootes proposal to set up a factory at Linwood, and many others. The Toothill Committee's Report has been mentioned, and this, I think, puts all these matters into fairly reasonable perspective.
  I do not want to overstay my time. I know that there are many hon. Members who want to take part in the debate, and if they speak as much as they have interrupted we shall indeed have a long session.
  The proposed closure of uneconomic pits will affect us deeply in Ayrshire. Indeed, it will affect everyone in Scotland. It grieves us to think of all these decent honest, Scottish workpeople being bereft of the jobs in which they, their parents, and possibly their grandparents were brought up and to which they gave
  686
  their lives. I have many friends amongst the miners in Scotland. I am not sure whether they vote for me—if they do they conceal it pretty well. Nevertheless, they remain my friends.
  The fact is—and here I speak of what I know—that it is not possible to carry on a prosperous brickworks unless there are adequate supplies of suitable brickearth. It is not possible to run a prosperous cement works unless there are suitable and proper supplies, and indeed reserves, of limestone, chalk, and so on. The same consideration applies to coal mines. A coal mine cannot be run on a profitable basis unless there are the necessary reserves of coal to mine.
  We are trying to overcome the problem by using the 1960 Act to find jobs to replace those which will be lost by the closure of the pits. I have every confidence that the Government, with the powers they have taken by that Act, will provide adequate jobs, and suitable training for those jobs, for the miners who are displaced from the pits. If I did not believe that, I would not be supporting a Tory Government.
  5.37 p.m.
  Mr. J. Grimond: The hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) seems to take comfort from the way in which some people in Scotland react when the weather is bad. They say that it is a good thing that it is far worse in the South. The hon. Gentleman's consolation to the Scottish economy is to say that other nations are worse off.
  I start by joining in the good wishes which have been expressed to the new Secretary of State for Scotland. Although he is not here at the moment, I should like to put on record my gratitude for many kindnesses given to me by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor. I disagreed with many of his policies, and even more with his lack of policy on many matters, but in courtesy, in kindness, and in the trouble he took, he was pre-eminent among Ministers, and I hope that his family troubles will improve and that he will have a holiday.
  I do not think that it is necessary to go over again the state of Scotland. One thing which has been agreed on both sides of this House in this debate is that there is grave concern about our country. We may, in two years, have

  687
  matched the figures suggested by the Scottish Council of 15,000 extra jobs per year, but in fact in the last year there was a decrease in the number of jobs, and soon between 7,000 and 23,000 people are to be thrown out of work in the coal mines, and an unknown number on the railways.
  There is no need to pile on the agony or wring our hands about the situation. I want to try to make some suggestions about what might be done. There is one overriding consideration, which is that Scotland will never thrive if it is treated in all respects as an outlying part of Middlesex. The reason we are concerned about Scotland is because it is our country. It is a distinct country. It has traditions of its own and from those traditions it can make a great contribution to world civilisation. If someone does not believe that, he might as well accept emigration and let the people go to Luton, Coventry, or London. But if he believes it, then he must allow Scotland to develop differently from England. That means giving the Scots some responsibility and some power over their own affairs. The decline in Scotland is intimately bound up with the steady draining away of power and influence in political, financial and social matters to London and the South-East.
  But even before we get the more radical alterations in our Government which are necessary, there is a good deal which could be done within the existing framework. The first thing that we should look at is the Scottish Office. We spend too little time discussing the instruments of Government. In particular we should look in the Scottish Office to see if there is any machinery for development within it. We cannot achieve expansion and the targets which I hope will be set before us unless we have the machinery to do it.
  Is there a development unit in the Scottish Office? I may be told that there is, and that this Report on Industry is the first fruits of it. But is not this merely a reorganisation of departments inside the Office? What I mean by a development unit is not simply another administrative department. I certainly do not mean a big department; I mean a small unit of experts in such matters
  688
  as trade, business, economics, sociology, statistics and town and country planning. What I want to see this unit doing is, first, suggesting initiatives in development and, secondly, co-ordinating the work of the departments within the Scottish Office and the other bodies in Scotland which are concerned with development, and also co-ordinating the work between the Scottish Office and the other Ministries in London.
  If we are to have that we must have, in the machinery of Government, some new sorts of civil servant. I should like to see Scotland carrying out a pilot scheme involving some changes in the Civil Service. We have one of the best Civil Services in the world, and I pay very high tribute to it, but its job today is quite different from what it was 50 or 100 years ago. It should now recruit more people who are not trained exclusively in the arts disciplines. We must try to give civil servants a sabbatical year to refresh themselves, and try seconding people from the Civil Service to industry and other people from industry to the Civil Service. This must be paralleled by some changes in our procedure here. We should exercise a close democratic control over development in Scotland, and I am not convinced that we do this best by having a rather tightly packed series of Scottish debates in the late summer on the Estimates for the previous year. The Scottish Grand Committee might meet occasionally throughout the year and, instead of reviewing the past, review what is taking place in Scotland at the moment.
  If we had such a structure for planning in the Scottish Office, I should like to see it paralleled lower down by development authorities in regions and for specific purposes. I have always thought that we should have a Highland Development Board, and I am more and more convinced of that. In point of fact, there are slight signs that this sort of thing is going to happen. We already have county development officers. I note that in the new town of Livingstone two men have been given the job of co-ordinating and planning development. These tentative steps must be followed up by St. Andrew's House, and brought together in a system. By that means we will create a network to undertake the business of development from the Government side.

  689
  This should be matched by getting firms to organise themselves, industry by industry, to undertake research and to provide better statistics and information, than we have mow, especially about the intentions of firms in an industry. This is done on the Continent, and it is a great help to any national system of planning. It is odd that we have to spend so much on Continental experience, and are now sending people to Norway to try to find out how to deal with remote communities.
  Next, we must get rid of our love of amateurism. We are deeply suspicious of experts. We have carried this suspicion far too far. I do not say a word against the persons involved; I am talking about the policies or principles. But it is indicative of our attitude that the White Fish Authority, the Herring Industry Board, and the Crofters Commission, are all headed by people who have no expertise or long experience in the fields which they are meant to control or develop. This may be all right so long as they are simply administrative, but if they are to develop we must bring in a new type of man.
  I am not saying that the White Fish Authority should have a fisherman at its head; far from it. I do not want the men on these bodies to be too narrowly concentrated on the technicalities of their own industries, but if they are to develop we must have at their head the sort of people who know about selling things, and marketing. We must also have people who are in the prime of life, and not people who are retired. We want people who are ready to make this their life's work and profession, and who will tackle it in a professional way.
  All over Scotland today we find sick communities. They have suffered from depopulation for so long that they have lost all their best people, or their sole industry has closed down. It is necessary to put capital into these industries, but that is not always enough, because there is no local initiative. Here again, we want people who are trained in the techniques of sociology and so forth, who will carry out surveys of these communities and draw up a co-ordinated plan. I know that politicians love the word "co-ordinate", but it is important. When I went to the small island of Yell to see what could be done for it, I found
  690
  there at least a dozen separate authorities who were trying to deal with the question of rehabilitation. None of them has any money, very few have power and not all have expert personnel, but there are a dozen or more of them. This is nonsense, and unprofessional. We will never develop Scotland until this is put right.
  Let us consider the question of transport. Dr. Beeching is said to be considering the closure of railway services in Scotland. Is anyone at the same time considering the planning of regions in which lines are to be closed? Is there any co-ordination between the attempt to drive industry to the far north of Scotland and Dr. Beeching's plans to close railway lines? If such co-ordination can be created it will provide a framework of planning, which is what Scotland lacks today.
  Now for some suggestions about what could be done in the framework. My first two suggestions in this connection are short, and are in the form of questions. Why cannot the Government do the simple thing of sending more of the offices and institutions that they control out of London and up to Scotland? When I ask that question I am told that they have done a very good job, but we know that two buildings in London have been taken over for new offices. This is a simple thing, directly within the Government's control. Secondly, what are they doing to encourage further education and retraining in industry? If we are to have many people thrown out of work in the mines, the shale industry and transport, they will have to be retrained. Have the Government a scheme ready to do this?
  I suggest that the Local Employment Act is not enough. It is too negative a Measure. We must have some positive inducement for industry to go to Scotland. It must be discriminatory. If we want it to go to Scotland we must either offer it some advantage or remove some disadvantage, which is discrimination. I want to see more positive steps taken. One step would be to consider giving some fiscal advantages to industry in Scotland.
  The inducements that we offer must be fair between firm and firm. One of the objections to the Local Employment Act is that an established firm may not be eligible for assistance because

  691
  it will not provide any more employment. But if it does not receive assistance it may actually pay men off. If we provide fiscal advantages we can be fairer as between one firm and another. The inducements can take various forms. One form which should be examined is the encouragement of investment in Scotland.
  Here again, the Government could do something directly. They could increase investment in the public sector in Scotland. In point of fact it has gone up hardly at all in the last three years. It amounted to £194 million in 1959, and £196 million in both the successive years. That figure could be directly increased by the Government. They could also encourage investment in the private sector by increasing the investment allowances in Scotland—
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman state his attitude to the direction of labour in industry? If it is right to direct miners to Yorkshire I should like to know whether it is wrong to direct people in industry in Scotland.
  Mr. Grimond: I do not want to speak for too long. I am not in favour of the direction of industry.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: But the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of the direction of people.
  Mr. Grimond: No, I am not. I am arguing in favour of giving fiscal advantages to firms in Scotland. The position is that the investment in the public sector is £196 million. In the manufacturing sector investment is running at about £113 million and, if my figures are right, the total overall investment in Scotland is about £480 million.
  While Scotland is investing her proportion of the United Kingdom total in the civil public sector she seems to be lagging slightly in the private sector which is where, primarily, we need investment. Whatever we may think of the position of Scotland vis-à-vis the United Kingdom, she does not show up very well in comparison with foreign countries. Allowing for the difference in population, the rate of investment in Denmark seems much the same. But Norway, a much poorer country with a
  692
  population of only 3½ million, is investing about £447 million compared with the total in Scotland which is not much more. Sweden, with a population of 7½ million, is investing £960 million, and Switzerland, with a population which is very much the same as that of Scotland, is investing £651 million.
  I am sure that hon. Members will agree that if we are to get more jobs in Scotland, investment is important. The creation of business confidence is important. We cannot congratulate this Government on their efforts to instil confidence in the country, but they could do something directly to encourage investment in Scotland by giving higher investment allowances there than in prosperous parts of England.
  If we are talking seriously about inducing industry to come to Scotland, we must consider the question of making some fiscal difference and I suggest that this is one method which might be examined. It would fit in with what is said in paragraph 17 of the memorandum from the Scottish Council where the Council point to the need for increased factory building. These are three suggestions. There are many more. But I think the time has come when it is the business of this House to make positive suggestions. I find it astonishing that the Government have made no suggestions of their own. They have picked up a few from the Toothill Committee and from here and there. But I have yet to hear one suggestion from the Government—and they have been in office for 11 years.
  As I say, we are agreed that the Scottish situation today causes us great concern. Apart from unemployment, there is occurring the break-up of communities and continuing depopulation. If we cannot get some action taken, both in respect of the targets which have to be achieved and the methods and policies to be pursued, the decline in Scotland may become even faster than it is today.
  5.53 p.m.
  Sir Fitzroy Maclean: The House has listened with interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). I find myself in agreement with several of the things he said, most of all about the need for positive action,

  693
  and I hope to deal with those points later. I should like to join with other hon. Members in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on his accomplished performance at the Dispatch Box and I wish to do so both as a neighbour and as one of his constituents. I should also like to wish him luck—
  Mr. Rankin: He will need it.
  Sir F. Maclean: —in the very arduous task which lies before him. We have had some experience of my right hon. Friend as a Government Whip and I hope that he will use the firmness and determination which he showed in that capacity not only in dealing with hon. Gentlemen opposite, but also in fighting for Scotland's interests with his right hon. Friends in the Cabinet. It is very important that the Secretary of State for Scotland should do that.
  In common with other hon. Members, I should like to remember my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay), who has earned the friendship of everyone in this House by his kindness and the considerate way in which he has dealt with our various problems. We should not forget the great projects for which he was responsible and which are already beginning to bear fruit. I am confident that they will go on to bear more fruit. As was said by the Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Renfrew, West certainly laid the foundations, very sound foundations, on which he himself can build.
  I was glad to hear that the Secretary of State recognises the serious nature of the present crisis, because, of course, crisis it is. It is a crisis which has got worse in recent months. I was also glad to hear him repeat the oft-repeated pledge of his predecessor not to rest until the rate of unemployment in Scot-land had been reduced to something nearer the British average.
  I wish to illustrate some of the points I propose to make by reference to the state of affairs in my own constituency, in particular in North Ayrshire. I make no apology for doing so because I think there is a certain merit in dealing in concrete and actual examples, and also because I think that many considerations which apply to my constituency apply
  694
  also to Scotland as a whole. The present employment situation in North Ayrshire is typical. It is bad and it is getting worse. It is aggravated by all kinds of factors which are the fault of no one in particular, such as the automation introduced by I.C.I. and the approaching completion of the Hunters-ton nuclear power station, and it will be affected indirectly by pit closures and by rail closures.
  I have always been among the first to recognise the limited powers of the Government in these matters. There is a limit to what they can do, and I think that the Leader of the Opposition made that quite clear when he said—it is an opinion that is not shared by all his hon. Friends—that there should be no question of the direction of industry or of the direction of labour, but even so —
  Mr. Emrys Hughes Mr. Emrys Hughes rose—
  Sir F. Maclean: —even though the Government's powers are limited, and although their responsibilities, therefore, are also limited, there is a lot which they could do. It is that which I wish to talk about tonight.
  I have always believed that the situation calls for co-operation by all the parties concerned. To revert once again to my constituency, there we have a first-class labour force and very good employers. I would mention only I.C.I. I think everyone would agree that I.C.I. is an excellent employer. As a further example of enlightened private enterprise I would mention the recent purchase of the dockyard at Ardrossan. If that can be made a success of it may well do a very great deal to improve the local employment situation. We have good labour, good employers and a very good industrial relations record. We also have good communications and a good site.
  In addition, I have always thought that it is very important for local authorities to make their contribution. In my constituency the local authorities and the trades councils in Saltcoats, Ardrossan, Stevenston and Kilwinning, which is not in my constituency, have got together and formed a Joint Industrial Committee which is taking active steps to publicise the facilities which we offer and make known all over the

  695
  world what North Ayrshire can offer in the way of industrial facilities.
  I have shown that we have labour and good employers. I have shown that the local authorities are playing their part. Now, what can the Government do? There are a number of ways in which they can help. In Scotland as a whole we do not get our proper share of research and development. We should get that. I also think that the Government could bring more Government installations and Departments to Scotland, and I should like, without being selfish, to see some of them come to my own constituency.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Direct them.
  Sir F. Maclean: The Government are in a position to direct their own Departments, even under our system.
  Mr. William Ross: How many Government establishments in Scotland were closed while the hon. Member was a member of the Government and represented an English constituency?
  Sir F. Maclean: There are one or two in my present constituency which I think could be put to better use and one just outside my constituency which from being a War Department depôt has been turned into a very good industrial estate. That is just what I urge my right hon. Friend to do more of. So the Department with which I was once connected does not come out of it too badly.
  The Government's principal instrument of policy in all this is the Local Employment Act. I have supported that Act. I still think that, properly used, it could do much good. What is required is a much more vigorous application of it. I think that the deterrents and inducements which the Act provides should be strengthened and used more vigorously. I also think, as the Scottish Council has suggested, that there should be "a much clearer prior definition of inducements". When I was recently in the United States, I had occasion to see what other countries do by way of attracting industry. One of the things that other countries on the look out for new industry do is make it abundantly clear exactly what they can offer. They do that quickly. They will tell any firm
  696
  which applies exactly what it can expect and how soon. We take a very long time indeed. I hope that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will bear this necessity in mind. It is very important to speed up the procedure.
  The situation is so critical, and has been so critical for so long, that I am inclined to agree with the Leader of the Liberal Party that the Government should think about using fiscal inducements. Tax remissions are a very strong bait to a new industry. I wonder if something of that kind can be used in Scotland. The Government should at least think about it.
  Finally, I want to say something about the problem of advance factories. I have always been inclined to accept the official view of the Government, or what has been the Government's official view up to now, namely, that it is much better to build factories specially to the specification of an industrialist coming to the area. Only the other day I had occasion to write to my right hon. Friend about an American firm which was thinking of coming to Scotland. I suggested that the firm should be sent to visit my constituency. I received the reply that it was not even worthwhile for the firm to visit North Ayrshire because there were "no existing premises" there. That makes me wonder whether we ought to have existing premises in North Ayrshire. That was one reason given. The other reason given by the then Parliamentary Secretary was that the firm could not be
  "sure enough of being able to get the labour it needed in the area, after taking into account the prospective needs of other undertakings already established or under construction in the area."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1962; Vol. 662, c. 259.]
  That does not make sense, because surely my right hon. Friend knows the rate at which unemployment is running in North Ayrshire at present. What matters is the fact that there are men unemployed now, not the fact that a firm may conceivably find itself short of labour in a year or two.
  That brings me back to the question of advance factories. I suspect that the reason why firms prefer any old advance factory, even if it does not exactly suit them, is that they believe that if they

  697
  have one built for them by the Government years will elapse before it is ready and by then the situation may be changed altogether. I can quite understand their point of view.
  It is true that under the working of the Local Employment Act Scotland has a fair share of benefits, but viewed from the narrow viewpoint of my own constituency—and that is how I am inclined to view it—the working of the Act has been very disappointing. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend in replying will be able to hold out some hope of speeding up the working of the Act and also of giving it teeth and making it really work.
  6.8 p.m.
  Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) referred to what he called the accomplished performance of the Secretary of State for Scotland. In my view, it was a disastrous debut. It was unfortunate for him that he had to go in at the deep end, as it were, and talk about something in which hitherto he has taken very little interest. He treated us to a speech carefully prepared by his advisers—a non-committal speech, telling us nothing, promising us nothing, giving us no hope whatever.
  It is clear that today the Scottish economy is in the throes of a very painful industrial transition and, however carefully we plan that transition, there will be hardship. That is all the more reason for planning adequately. The Secretary of State is unfortunate in that he was the result for us of an extremely hasty, ruthless and bloody purge at the top. I take the view that it is no use shuffling a dog-eared pack when all the cards are marked even though the shuffling is done by the biggest cardsharper we have got.
  That is how I approach this question of the Scottish economy today. The Prime Minister is responsible, and it is the Prime Minister who ought to be in the dock today. He does not even bother to come to listen to his new recruit. If he had, he would have fired him tomorrow. What does the Prime Minister do? Occasionally he visits Scotland. He was there a few months ago, not to see the Scottish T.U.C., not to see anybody who is intimately concerned with Scottish problems, but to
  698
  see Jack Cotton and Mr. Clore and Sir Hugh Fraser. That was the object of his visit, not to discuss the problems which we are discussing today, but to discuss the means of replenishing the Tory Party coffers, and at public expense, too. But not all the Cottons and not all the Clores and not all the Frasers can save the Tory Party from being wiped out in Scotland at the next election. The more am I convinced of that after having listened to the speech of the Secretary of State this afternoon.
  Whatever abilities the right hon. Gentleman has have been carefully concealed from the House since he came here. What are his qualifications for the job? He is a landowner; he was educated at Eton; and he grows rhododendrons. It will be interesting to hear from him in the future, he is in an industry very heavily subsidised with Government money, defending the Government's policy of getting the nationalised industries on to a sound financial basis and paying their way.
  I can appreciate the Prime Minister's difficulties in making his extremely limited choice. He is in the position of the fellow who tried to make bricks without straw. The doctrine seems to be, "If you cannot appoint a relation, appoint somebody from Eton." The Secretary of State's predecessor was also a product of Eton.
  Mr. John Maclay: No, Winchester.
  Mr. Hamilton: I beg his pardon. I had the wrong English public school. With the greatest respect to the right hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay)—and I bear him no ill will as a person—his tenure of office was a disaster for Scotland. He is a likeable fallow. He should have gone into the Church, or perhaps the Liberal Party.
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: He was in the Liberal Party.
  Mr. Hamilton: I know exactly what his political antecedents were, but we will not go into those. He always gave me the impression, and I think the country, of being either unable or unwilling to fight within the Cabinet for the special claims of Scotland, for differential and

  699
  preferential treatment. As the Scotsman said last Friday:
  "A mistake the Government are making is that they are treating Scotland as a region of the United Kingdom whose problems call for exactly the same treatment as, say, those of Northern England. They are not making sufficient allowance for the fact that Scotland is a distinct nation and that there is a limit to the extent to which the Scottish people will allow their economy to be damaged."
  This is the Tory Scotsman which went on:
  "The Government should regard Scotland as presenting them with an opportunity of demonstrating the virility of Conservatism."
  Virility of Conservatism!
  Mr. James Dempsey(Coatbridge and Airdrie): Senility.
  Mr. Hamilton: It is like expecting virility from a eunuch. Eleven years of this virility have resulted in an increase in monthly unemployment from 54,700 in April, 1951, under a Labour Government, to 79,000 in April, 1962, very nearly a 50 per cent. increase under the present Government. There has been an increase in industrial production of rather less than 2 per cent. per annum and an annual average of only 1 per cent. for the last six years.
  Taking 1954 as a base year, the Scottish economy has expanded at only half the rate of a very slowly expanding United Kingdom economy. It is this stagnation, or comparative stagnation, plus the green light for the unfettered oil competition, which has led to the great problems which the coal industry is now facing. It is not without significance that the same pressure group which has allowed oil to overtake coal in many respects has been operating to get the Pipe-lines Bill through the House with unseemly haste, and that almost all the advisers of the Government on this issue are people who have had connections with big oil firms.
  The latest blow was last Wednesday's announcement, in my view a calculated attempt to conceal the facts rather than inform the House. It was very apt that that statement should have been made as the last major statement of the outgoing Secretary of State. It was the final act of humiliation for him. There was then a glorious opportunity for him to refuse to make that statement. It should properly have been made by the
  700
  Minister of Power. The right hon. Member for Renfrew, West ought to have taken the opportunity then to resign. That would have been the greatest blow he could have struck as the last blow he would strike in the office of Secretary of State.
  That statement was the direct consequence of the economic stagnation which I have been talking about, the refusal to establish a national fuel policy. The policy adumbrated in the Government's White Paper on the Financial and Economic Obligations of the Nationalised Industries, published in April of last year, made no mention of social obligations. Both Lord Robens of the National Coal Board and Dr. Beeching have quite rightly said that the social consequences flowing from the implementation of the policies in that White Paper must be the responsibility of the Government.
  So obsessed are the Tory Government with the importance of the £ s. d. yardstick, that they completely ignore the possible social consequences of attempting to make the nationalised industries pay their way within five years. Again to quote the ultra-Tory Scotsman of Thursday, 12th July:
  "The conclusion seems inescapable that the Government gave insufficient thought to the consequences of their policy, and that the White Paper should have been supported by vigorous and effective measures to create jobs for workers displaced. It was then, not now, that special action should have been taken."
  What is the special action which is to be taken even now? We had a statement about what is to happen to Donibristle. This is two or three years too late. It is at least two years since Fife County Council and I were agitating for the Board of Trade to take it over. The writing was then on the wall about the future of the mining industry in Fife.
  Take the question of the increased training allowances. These will not be applicable only to Scotland; they will be applicable throughout the country. There is to be no different treatment in Scotland. In any case, what help will this be to a man in the pit aged 50 or 55, who is to be thrown on the scrap heap? He cannot be trained for another job and he cannot easily move home to another part of the country. What about those going to England? Some of my constituents have been going to work

  701
  in the coal mines in England. They have to wait eighteen months or two years for a house. They have to suffer a considerable reducation in wages because they do not get jobs at the coal face in the English pits.
  There is no evidence whatever that the Government are aware of these problems. There is no attempt as far as I know to collect detailed data on these things. The brutal truth is that the Government do not very much care about it. The workers are simply pawns on a capitalist board to be moved from one place to another.
  The Government do not direct industry, but they direct the men. The Government protest that this is not true. We can see thorn giving disapproving glances. I am always delighted when I see that because I know that probably I am on the right lines. They say that they have provided more new jobs in the last two years than the number that have been lost. The ex-Secretary of State went very much further last Wednesday. He said, as reported in column 1349 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for that day, that there had been a net gain of about 30,000 new jobs in the last two years. That is not true.
  Mr. Maclay: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member because I have sworn not to speak this afternoon, but he must not misquote me. If he will look carefully he will find that I said it was from 1959 to 1961.
  Mr. Hamilton: The right hon. Member said there had been a net gain of 30,000 new jobs in the last two years. I shall come to that figure in a moment and show how it is not true. Even if it were it has been drawn largely by getting the major motor car expansions, which in any case are not likely to be repeated for many years. Indeed this is the peak.
  I got the facts in answer to a Question on 21st May. I shall not quote them except to say that between 1959 and 1961, according to those figures, the number of jobs lost was 46,150 and the estimated gain was 42,600. These are the years that the right hon. Member for Renfrew, West was worried about. In the first two years of the operation of the Local Employment Act, Scotland, with an average of 204 per cent. of all the unemployment in Britain, got 11·9 per cent. of the new jobs. Look
  702
  at the other figures for the rest of the United Kingdom. England, where there was 72·4 per cent. of unemployment, got 79·7 per cent. of new jobs. Wales with 7·2 per cent. unemployment got 8·4 per cent. of the new jobs.
  Look at the regions. I am referring to the Board of Trade, not the Ministry of Labour regions. The Eastern Region of England had 4·3 per cent. unemployment and got 12·1 per cent. of the new jobs. The North Midland Region had 4·5 per cent. of unemployment and got 7·2 per cent. of new jobs. The Southwestern Region had 5·4 per cent. unemployment and 7·9 per cent. of the new jobs. Even London and the South-Eastern Region with 15·4 per cent. of the total unemployment had 11·8 per cent. of the new jobs. London and the South-East got as big a proportion of the new jobs provided since the inauguration of the Local Employment Act as Scotland did with very much less of the total unemployment.
  That is the result of the Local Employment Act. All the regions I have quoted got a bigger proportion of the new jobs than their percentage of unemployment warranted. These figures do not include the I.D.C.s granted before April, 1960. For example, the B.M.C. which the Government talk about as being the product of the Local Employment Act was nothing of the kind because the I.D.C. was issued before the operation of the Local Employment Act. In any case, in the first six months of this year another 13,400 have been declared redundant in Scotland, the greatest in any region.
  The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have no cause to congratulate themselves on the "enormous success" of the Local Employment Act. At the very best we have stood still. This is no consolation for Fife, especially central West Fife. I do not want to quote the mass of figures I have—they are only too well known—but I will refer to one village, Kelty, about which I asked at Question Time this afternoon. There is the Aitken pit, with 890 men in it, scheduled for closure in 1963. There is the Lindsay with 800 men, scheduled to close in 1964. There are 1,700 men in one village and not a single job for them. They have a betting shop, but there is no industry at all.

  703
  If we look at the B and C lists we find that the total number involved in central West Fife is about 8,000 men. If we add their wives and families there are 30,000 people. Imagine them marching in protest four abreast and a yard between them. That would be a column four miles long, a column of worry and fear, bitterness and anger—anger against a Government which cares more for £ s. d. than men, women and children, a Government which shrinks from the direction of industry but positively relishes the idea of directing labour. Fife County Council has legitimate grounds for complaint because it has invested £17 million in houses, in schools, in roads and so on, based on plans put to it by the National Coal Board in conjunction with the Government. Unless something is done to bring industry to that area I fear that this social capital will be of no avail.
  I shall enumerate what can be done. First, the Government have to recognise much more than they have up to now the complete inadequacy of their existing policies. Secondly, there has to be a national fuel policy based on a highly efficient coal industry financially reorganised. If the right hon. Gentleman can defend subsidies for farmers, I can defend them to a nationalised industry.
  Thirdly, there must be an overall policy of expansion, not just as a pre-election gimmick or stunt. As the Guardian very cynically said on Monday, 16th July in its City column:
  "It is natural to assume that the Prime Minister has cleared the decks for the next boom—and the next Election."
  Fourthly, we want a special regional policy for Scotland based on much more detailed statistics than we have today, comparative costs data and things of that kind. We also want major changes in budgetary policy and a regional differential payroll tax, thus increasing the cost advantage of location in Scotland. I also suggested in a Question today that there should be regional variation in the National Insurance employers' contributions, which would, again, be a means of differentiating in favour of Scotland in labour costs.
  Other points put by other hon. and right hon. Members were that there should be more Government finance and
  704
  research and, last but not least, that Scotland has a natural claim for the direction of industry. I believe that the only kind of industry that we can direct in a practical way is State-owned industry, and that is why I want more State-owned industry. We have had examples put forward recently. We have heard much adverse comment in the Press about privately manufactured drugs used in the Health Service and being put on the market which have resulted in deformed children. Why cannot the National Health Service produce its own drugs? Why cannot we have a nationally-owned drug industry in Scotland? Why cannot we have the production of all the bed linen and hospital requisites publicly owned and controlled? We could direct these in Scotland and have regard in that direction to the social consequences and implications. These are the things that need to be done, but the Government will not do them.
  I could say the same about school equipment. Here we have a State enterprise. The educational system is basically State-owned and controlled and basically State-financed. Why cannot we manufacture and produce the furniture and all the school equipment in State-owned and controlled industries, and put them in the Highlands and in other areas where there are pockets of unemployment? The Government will not do that.
  The Government, whose name is associated with betting shops, bingo halls, strip-tease, Premium Bonds and commercial television, are not concerned with the things that I have been talking about. The sooner they go the better.
  Mr. Maclay: May I make this absolutely clear? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will read HANSARD more accurately in future and not use figures quoted by me without getting them correct.
  Mr. Hamilton: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well—and I challenge him to deny it—that he said that there had been a net increase of 30,000 jobs in the last two years.
  Mr. Maclay: This is a small point, but it is a question of accuracy. I am quoting from HANSARD:
  "In two years, from 1959 to 1961, there was a net gain of about 30,000 jobs in Scotland."—

  705
  [OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1962; Vol. 662. c. 1349.]
  Mr. Hamilton: I was not challenging the statement; I was saying it was not true.
  Mr. Maclay: The whole point is that it was made very clear that the year 1961–62 was not a good year.
  Mr. Hamilton: If that is the case, the right hon. Gentleman was deliberately deluding the House.
  6.45 p.m.
  Sir John Gilmour: As an old Etonian and a grower of rhododendrons, I have the greatest pleasure in disassociating myself from the remarks of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I think also that several hon. and right hon. Members have been a little unfair on him today because, within a very few hours of his taking up the office of Secretary of State, he announced that he was going to continue this measure of industrial derating which at a time when Scotland is fighting for jobs is obviously of great importance to the industrial development of Scotland. I am certain that it is right that he should not, in the first few days of his office, start off with a lot of promises before he could possibly have had a chance to assess what it was possible for him to do.
  The hon. Member for Fife, West shares with me the honour of representing the County of Fife. I know how worried everyone is in that county. I know what difficulties there are to overcome, but it is fair, I think, to record the progress which is being made in the town of Glenrothes, the plans for Donibristle and the private enterprise new town of Dalgetty, the details of which were in the newspapers only a few days ago.
  I should like to return to the tenor of the debate set by the Leader of the Opposition, when he opened it today, on the question of taking a tougher policy with industrial development certificates. Yesterday there appeared in The Times a graph showing what was happening. There is no doubt that the bias was going definitely to the south-east of the country, and it is still going there. The Secretary of State gave details of the jobs that it has been possible to provide
  706
  in Scotland in spite of the fall off in other industries, and very many of these have come from the expansion of existing industries, however great a part the new industries have played. That is what is happening all over the country. Nothing succeeds like success. Somebody starts a business and it prospers. One cannot suddenly stop it, pick part of it up and take it away. It must be within the ingenuity of the Secretary of State in conjunction with the President of the Board of Trade to try to arrive at some solution different from the present method of issuing industrial development certificates.
  Many hon. Members today have mentioned the Toothill Report. In one paragraph the Committee wondered whether, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said, we had exactly the right set-up in Scottish administration. Would it not perhaps be better to have a Scottish Undersecretary of State at the Board of Trade rather than an Under-Secretary at the Scottish Office Who is responsible for trade and industry? I hope that some change to try to help Scotland in this way may be made in the months ahead.
  However keen we are on the immediate solution of the difficulties, which I am sure are being well looked after, I should like to say something about the longer term so far as it may help to improve conditions in Scotland. I refer to the timber trade. When the Forestry Commission started planting after the First World War it was very much with the idea of having a strategic reserve of timber, but in the nuclear age that same need is not there. On the other hand, we imported last year £176 million worth of timber and £117 million worth of pulp and waste paper. Soft wood consumption has risen by 70 per cent. in the last 10 years. British-grown soft woods amount to 2·7 per cent. of the total consumption, half of which comes from private forests and half from the Forestry Commission, but the Forestry Commission's proportion will increase as the plantings of the 'twenties come to maturity.
  I know that the Secretary of State will have a real interest in the possible establishment of the pulp mill at Fort William. Of course, the coal pit closures and the cutting down of the amount of

  707
  timber used in the mining industry highlights the need to find new outlets for Scottish timber. To do this, I think that we need a further review of how we can co-ordinate forestry and agriculture. I am certain that it may well be in the interests of Scotland as a whole if forestry and agriculture are put under one control. In Scotland we have only 8·3 per cent. of our land area covered by trees, and the proportion for the country as a whole is about 7 per cent. A large part of Scotland is mountain and moor. I have walked over many of the hills of Scotland and seen in many places the relics of forests which have now gone.
  There is today a competition between agriculture and forestry. I suggest that this could be ended by having both under one control. In this way, we could ensure that the drift away from the Highlands and Islands was stopped. I live in the Lowlands and I know the problems there, but I know also that every time someone leaves a glen in the Highlands a job is lost for someone in the Lowlands. If we are to build up the Scottish economy, we must be prepared to look at not only what happens in the industrial belt, though that is a big problem on its own, but also to the future everywhere and plan to keep more people on the land. As a result of mechanisation, agriculture will employ fewer people as time goes on. Forestry offers the best opportunity.
  Last summer, I went to Norway and saw people living there in communities far more removed from civilisation than anything we have in Scotland save, perhaps, in the very remote outer islands. The Norwegians have a co-ordination between fishing and forestry. Would it not be possible to lease to farmers and crofters sections of the Forestry Commission's land which they could work under direction so that, instead of having to bring in squards of men to do a particular operation, we could keep people permanently resident on the land who would be doing the work in these forests but under the supervision of qualified forestry experts? This is the sort of thing that is done in the Scandinavian countries, probably under private ownership, but in this country the resident people, fishermen and crofters,
  708
  could help in the maintenance of our State forests.
  If the total forest area were increased and if forestry and agriculture were put under one control, this would give great help in setting the economy of Scotland on a sounder basis in the longer term. In the meantime there are many short-term things to do to which, I am certain, the Secretary of State will apply his mind. On both sides of the House, I believe, we wish him the very best in his endeavours.
  6.42 p.m.
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) is a landowner, an old Etonian and a grower of rhododendrons, and he also makes speeches very like that which the present Secretary of State made from the back benches on one occasion during a Scottish debate several years ago. The right hon. Gentleman's one and only contribution—I am sorry he is not here at the moment—was to advocate from the back benches in a seven-minute speech—very commendable—the direction of pulp and chip mills to the Highlands and a speeding up of the D.A.T.A.C. procedure. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, being now Secretary of State and a prisoner of those promises, is bound to see that they are carried out.
  However, this in itself will not solve the problem. In one way, I am glad that there has been a change in Secretaries of State because I believe that the right hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) has, if I may say so without disrespect, become the prisoner of his own past speeches. I hope that the new Secretary of State will tell his Under-Secretaries that the language of the past few years is now forbidden. From what the Secretary of State said today and the tenor of his remarks, although he promised us nothing, it seems that we are not to have the same old touch and the same old arguments, the hope of sunshine coming along soon without any clouds in the sky if only we will bide our time.
  During the past few weeks, a kind of cemetery of Tory arguments has been built. Only a few months ago, the Under-Secretary of State who is at present on the Front Bench gave us the old "black spot" argument. Greenock is a

  709
  well-known black spot in Scotland. I have become sick and tired of hearing the black spot theory and I am glad that it has now gone. The idea was that all one had to do was to pick on an area, add up the number of unemployed, produce a pipeline to match it, and then everything would be all right. To my great surprise, the former Secretary of State once told me in a debate that he had solved Greenock's unemployment problem, at least on paper. I prophesy tonight that if I interrupt the President of the Board of Trade he will throw back at me the argument that because there is a graving dock being built on the Clyde Greenock's unemployment problems are solved.
  This is the unhappy feature of our situation. Having done certain things, the Government assume prematurely that all is well. The Clyde graving dock is being built. We are told that because it may produce in five years—there are arguments about it—about 600 jobs direct and, perhaps, 1,200 jobs on the Clyde river itself for ship repairing, all the local problems of Greenock and the neighbouring towns represented by the right hon. Member for Renfrew, West, the former Secretary of State, are solved. It is just nonsense. In any case, it is no argument for saying that we must wait for five years until the dock is built and allow unemployment to continue at its present level during all that time.
  If one looks at the returns of the Registrar-General not in relation to Scotland as a whole—those are bad enough—but in relation to certain communities in Scotland, one sees that in the towns which are waiting for a solution to their unemployment difficulties the best skilled labour—the young people—is being driven away by the reality or threat of unemployment. This is the sadness of it. In spite of the British Hydrocarbon factory at Grange-mouth and all we were told about the B.M.C. factory at Bathgate, the problems are still there. One thing I learned from my short experience in West Lothian helping my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) in his campaign was that the coming of the B.M.C. has not been a complete answer to the problems there. Looking further up from Greenock to Linwood, we are told that the arrival of the Rootes factory
  710
  will solve all the difficulties of the County of Renfrew. On the record of experience at Bathgate, this is just not true. The Government so far are failing to attract the industries ancillary and subsidiary to these large factories to Scotland. They ought to be large industrial complexes attracting more industries and more jobs than the main factories themselves represent.
  In my constituency we have had one factory of 22,000 sq. ft. lying empty for nine months without a single firm having been enticed to come and take up occupation. It is incredibly difficult to believe that there is not some industry in the Midlands which would want to feed the Rootes factory at Linwood with its necessary materials for production which would not come and settle there if it were shown all the attractions of the area. What has happened? All the components for Bathgate are still brought up from the South. It was one of the arguments for settling the firm there that there would be subsidiary enterprises nearby to supply the factory. Is this a General Election illusion from which we have suffered all these years? Will not these places be growth points of Scottish industry?
  I want an assurance from the new Secretary of State that he will regard it as one of his highest priorities to be at the Board of Trade as often as he can to remind the Board of Trade that it must make the necessary efforts. It is not for local town councillors, Members of Parliament or deputations of businessmen to be left to do it unaided. Officials of the Board of Trade and Ministers of the Board of Trade are responsible for going to all the firms in the Midlands and telling them of the advantages which are to be obtained by going to settle in Scotland.
  Mr. John Brewis: Is the hon. Gentleman being quite fair? The Report points out that there ware four projects in Greenock and Port Glasgow in 1961 providing just under 700 new jobs and that two further projects are under construction.
  Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman must look at the unemployment figures in Greenock and the level of migration. Then he will not be quite so content with what might appear at first sight

  711
  from the Report. I once challenged the Under-Secretary of State to publish a report not of jobs in the pipeline but of jobs which had been created. We have only just begun to have these details. Some of the figures can be immensely misleading, as I know very well.
  A firm in my constituency was given an I.D.C. to make a certain extension which was to provide 700 jobs. When the extension was made, the firm recruited 50 new employees. I welcomed this, of course, but within three months the industrial labour force at that factory had fallen by 50. I do not blame the firm concerned. But such records of 700 new jobs being created is often just nonsense. We really must look at the thing more closely in terms of reality rather than what has been promised or what appears in the statistics of I.D.C. estimates.
  As I say, in Greenock, there has been this complacent argument that we have the Clyde graving dock. I hope that we shall not hoar it any more. It is said that because it represents 1,200 jobs it is a solution of the local unemployment problem. I hope that we shall not be told that because one factory moves from one place to another and creates a certain large number of jobs there is a net gain of that number. I want no more cheating in the books. We have had enough of that.
  It is very difficult for hon. Members to get at all the facts and figures because they are very cleverly arranged in Command Papers, Ministerial statements and Board of Trade letters. However, once one gets to the bottom of it, it is astonishing to find how we have been deceived by Government claims. It is still true that in Greenock we have 7 per cent. unemployment. We have had this figure of unemployment for many years —for as many years as hon. Members opposite have been in power.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White): I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says about cheating in the books. Perhaps he would like to have an argument with the Leader of the Liberal Party who asked us to give estimates. If a project goes forward at an estimated level of employment which is not met, we cannot be accused of cheating.
  Dr. Mabon: That is a most unreasonable intervention, and I do not propose to answer it. The real answer to the question of whether the industrial and unemployment problems of Scotland have been solved is to find out the rate of industrial growth and the number of people in employment in Scotland. When one has done that, that, to my mind, is an end of the argument. I hope that we are finished with this argument about the so-called black spots and that people will realise that the industrial potential of Scotland as a whole must be widened.
  The hon. Member for Fife, East said that nothing succeeds like success. I take his point further and say that nothing succeeds like excess. It is unreasonable to say about the Grange-mouth area, as the Board of Trade once said in a letter, that the reason why there were not more subsidiary industries there was that the Board of Trade was most anxious to deal with other areas of high and persistent unemployment scheduled under the Local Employment Act. What a silly argument. The Board of Trade has conceded that it is a silly argument and is now willing to encourage industries to go to the Grangemouth area. I should have preferred to see the whole of Scotland declared a development area including the Highland area as a whole and given adequate nation-wide assistance under the Act.
  I now return to the other point of the Secretary of State. He complained as a back bencher that there were many delays in the work of D.A.T.A.C, which is now B.O.T.A.C Not long ago, the managing director of a small firm, not in my constituency, applied on behalf of his firm to BO.T.A.C. for assistance. After fourteen months the Board of Trade said that it could not give him the loan for which he was asking primarily because he did not have enough money to invest further in the firm. He contacted me. I do not wish to expose his personal affairs to public gaze, but he did this to the Board of Trade. His house was mortgaged and everything possible was put into this business, which on every other account was a good investment. It seems to me that B.O.T.A.C. adopted a narrow attitude in this case. I hope that under the present Secretary of State and by constant nudging of the Board of Trade there will be better consideration and fewer delays between the time

  713
  when applications are received and the time that they are assessed and a final decision made.
  Many business men, in fact, have been asking, "Where can I find an empty factory? What are the advantages that the Government can give me for settling in this area?" They are asking for bribes or inducements to go to certain areas. I am not against giving them bribes. In fact, I am all for giving them very hefty bribes provided that in the long run they settle down and stay in the area and then pay back the bribe.
  One first-class large firm in my constituency, International Business Machines, was induced to come to Greenock in two ways. It was given the pick of the available land in Greenock—and, Mr. Speaker, if you know the topography you will know that that was quite a sacrifice—and it was given a tailor-made factory on splendid rental terms. This concern went to Greenock and settled down. It has decided to stay there and to buy its own factory and to pay back the assistance which came from the taxpayers. With the world being as sinful as it is, I am in favour of bribing private enterprise to do this. I am only sorry that the Government are not willing to do more of it.
  A great deal can be done to attract private industry to Scotland, but it will not go there for patriotic or philanthropic reasons. Some of the suggestions made my a number of my hon. Friends today have been quite admirable in the matter of preferences for investment and plant and in the running of firms. This is a matter on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be asked to take action.
  In July, 1960, we were told in a Press statement, which was supposed to be a "leak" from the Scottish Office, that the Secretary of State was arguing for entirely different treatment for Scotland under the July emergency measures of that year. It was said that Scotland would not suffer by a curtailment of its public investment programme. I thought that after four years in office the Secretary of State had learned what had to be done and was about to secure a great triumph. But it never came. The Scottish house-building, hospital-build-
  714
  ing and school-building programmes and Scottish public investment generally were chopped just as ruthlessly as the English programmes, without any distinction. I suggest that Scotland does not deserve this kind of treatment. We must have entirely different treatment from the Treasury. Scotland is not a part of the United Kingdom in that respect.
  I appeal to the new Secretary of State to try to sweep away the cobwebs of the past and to ginger up his Under-Secretaries of State and make them realise that they must not make complacent speeches. He must go forward with the Local Employment Act, but, above all, he must seize on some of the new ideas which we have thrust upon him so that Scotland may at least be given a Chance in the years ahead.
  6.57 p.m.
  Mr. John Brewis: The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Diekson Mabon) had many interesting things to say. I am much inclined to agree with what he said about the Treasury. I hope to take up some of the points which he made later in my speech. However, I point out to him that I have higher unemployment in one place in my constituency than even he has in Greenock.
  Mr. Dempsey: What is the percentage?
  Mr. Brewis: Over 8 per cent.
  The Leader of the Opposition made an interesting speech. It may have disappointed some hon. Members opposite in that in his article in one of the Glasgow newspapers he mentioned that Labour's policies of public ownership had a big rôle to play. We heard very little about this in his speech this afternoon. Recently, the right hon. Gentleman cast his bread on the waters at Middlesbrough, East and said that he would not nationalise I.C.I. This came back before many days were past in the form of floating votes, as we all know. Similarly today, the right hon. Gentleman was not in favour of the direction of industry, which is one of the policies of the Scottish Trades Union Council and of several hon. Members opposite. In effect, what the right hon. Gentleman said came down to a tougher I.D.C. policy and greater inducements.
  Appendix 38 of the Toothill Report gives some interesting figures about

  715
  what has been spent under the distribution of industry and local employment policy. From 1945 to 1960, £7·8 million was spent, which is equal to about £500,000 a year. From 1960 to 1962, the figure had risen to £43·3 million, or £21 million—

  ROYAL ASSENT
  7.0 p.m.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;
  The House went:—and, having returned;
  Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

  1. Acts of Parliament Numbering and Citation Act, 1962. (c. 34)

  2. Shops (Airports) Act, 1962. (c. 35)

  3. Local Authorities (Historic Buildings) Act, 1962. (c. 36)

  4. Building Societies Act, 1962. (c. 37)

  5. Town and Country Planning Act, 1962. (c. 38)

  6. Drainage Rates Act, 1962. (c. 39)

  7. Jamaica Independence Act, 1962. (c. 40)

  8. Colonial Loans Act, 1962. (c. 41)

  9. Law Reform (Damages and Solatium) (Scotland) Act, 1962. (c. 42)

  10. Carriage by Air (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1962. (c. 43)

  11. Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation (Brighouse) Act, 1962.

  12. Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation (Doncaster) Act, 1962.

  13. Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation (Sidmouth) Act, 1962.

  14. Grimsby Corporation Act, 1962.

  15. South Essex Waterworks Act, 1962.

  16. Ship Mortgage Finance Company Act, 1962.

  716

  17. London County Council (Money) Act, 1962.

  18. Manchester Corporation Act, 1962.

  19. Runcorn District Water Board Act, 1962.

  SUPPLY
  Question again proposed, That "£7,078,200" stand part of the Resolution.

  SCOTLAND (INDUSTRY AND EMPLOYMENT)
  7.12 p.m.
  Mr. Brewis: I was saying that the chief recommendation from hon. Members opposite has been a stronger industrial development certificates policy and greater inducements. Yet in the period from 1945 to 1960 £7·8 million or about £500,000 a year was spent on encouraging industry in Scotland, while in the last two years £43·3 million has been spent, equal to more than £21·6 million a year, or about 40 times as much as in each previous year since the end of the war. Therefore, I can hardly feel that Scotland has not been treated handsomely as regards the cash inducements handed out under the Local Employment Act.
  In the last two years 81,000 jobs have been created, and we see from page 41 of the Report that the potential employment is equal to about 46 per cent. of the total of unemployed. But the trouble is that this is an entirely theoretical point. The real heartache of the position is that we are losing jobs so rapidly in the older industries, such as shipbuilding. But that is due mainly to the many ships which there are in the world and to points like flag discrimination. It is not due necessarily to inefficiency in the Scottish yards or even to lack of encouragement by the Government. As a result, steel has decreased its production slightly.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman complains about shipbuilding. Would she not agree that this gives the Conservative Government an opportunity to experiment with atomic-powered ships? I was horrified that not one Scottish Conservative Member took part in the science and industry debate when the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney) outlined the argument for having an atomic-powered ship. That is the sort of thing which should be built on the Clyde.
  Mr. Brewis: I cannot enter into the question of an atomic-powered ship. Before building it, one has to be sure that one has the right machinery. We have given numerous Admiralty orders to the Clyde.
  With regard to coal pits, it is impossible for the Government to subsidise unwanted services and uneconomic activities. That would lead the country straight away into an economic crisis and would threaten the stability of the position of the whole country.
  But today we have a new Secretary of State for Scotland. I congratulate him and hope that I shall not annoy him too much by anything I say. First, I would point out that he has to watch carefully that he gets full co-operation from his Cabinet colleagues. He has to deal with the considerable problem of our railways, a problem in which the Minister of Transport will need to help as much as he can. Also, looming over the housing problem is the problem of the fishing industry.
  My right hon. Friend wild need cooperation to stem as far as possible this haemorrhage of depopulation which is pulling people away from Scotland. In what Professor Galbraith would call the old conventional wisdom, it used to be the laissez-faire argument that it was economic to let people go off to where work was to be found. We have to make a complete reappraisal of that idea.
  In France it has been calculated that every family which leaves the country area and goes to live in Paris, which is a great magnet for the population of
  718
  France, costs about £3,000 in housing, waiter, drainage, land and the general infrastructure necessary for civilised living. When a family leaves an area, one has to put on the debit side what has been spent in that area on education and other services in the interest of the worker and his family.
  The Scottish Office has considered many foreign countries, including Norway, but it might also look at one or two things which the French have done in Brittany. In 1954 a programme was started in Brittany, which is very much like Scotland in many ways, and is about 500 miles from Paris. At the time the survey was started it was at a fairly low ebb. There were practically no main roads, the roads were in bad repair, and the railway services were on two different gauges so that if one wanted to move goods from this part to Paris one bad to change trains.
  Brittany now has its motor factory. Many hon. Members may have noticed in connection with Telstar that the best television pictures were picked up at Lannion, at Cape Finistere, which is about as far away as anywhere could be. It is interesting how the station came to be there. M. Pleven, the former Prime Minister of France, and a Deputy for Brittany, appointed the Surlaut Commission to go round the Paris area Looking at all the Government research stations situated there and deciding which could be moved into areas such as Brittany which needed more science and more research stations. As a result, the radio and telecommunications centre for France was moved to Lannion. Following that, Brittany now has Phillips (Electronics) Co. at Lannion, the Compagnie Generale de Telegraphic at Brest, the Alsacienne Radio and T.V. Co. at Maudeville, Frankel at St. Malo, the Thomson-Houston [Electronics] Co. at Laval, and many others.
  This is something that we could well do in this country. However, I appreciate that it is beyond the initiative of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who would need the co-operation of the entire Cabinet. If one goes round the London area, to Teddington, Sunbury-on-Thames, Egham, Virginia Water, and so on, one finds many similar research stations which have no need to be in these congested areas. I cannot mention

  719
  any particular ones, except two about which I feed rather strongly. One is the Forestry Commission Research Station which is in Hampshire, and the Timber Research Station as Princes Risborough. In Scotland at the moment we have a bigger acreage under trees, but the research work that we are getting in Scotland is done by seven men and a dog somewhere near Edinburgh apart from the universities. I cannot see any reason why these research stations, should not go up to Edinburgh. The wives would be just as happy doing their shopping in Princes Street, Edinburgh, as in Regent Street, London. Why is it strategically necessary to keep the Army in the south of England? Why are Salisbury Plain and Aldershot so essential to the Army? Many of these Government Departments should exercise a sort of voluntary I.D.C. system in which the Departments see that their establishments can be spread about a little more.
  I now want to say a word or two about the fifth university. I do not want to go into it on educational terms at all, but we must realise that a new university is equivalent to a major industry coming into a town. We all know that since the war England and Wales have had twelve new universities. Why on earth could not one of these twelve have been placed just over the border in places like Dumfries, to which both English and Scottish students could come, as well as Commonwealth students. I was particularly pleased to see the new development plan for Livingstone, which is on a much bigger scale, and which, in my opinion, would be a very good site for a university.
  I am particularly pleased to see that the development plan is on the scale of a city, so that we can get the sort of city amenities and entertainments which people will want if they are to stay in Scotland. One thing which might be included in the Livingstone plan, and I believe the Board of Trade has power to do it, is the building of office blocks in order to get the commercial employment. Private enterprise development can do this and nearly always builds office blocks on an entirely speculative basis and manages to get away with it. I see no reason why we should not do exactly the same thing in the new town of Livingstone.
  720
  I should like now to speak about the inducements offered under the Local Employment Act for new industries to come in. On the whole, I think, they are adequate, but the building grant is particularly cumbersome. One has to get an assessor to look at the plans, decide what the value would be if the firm went out of business, as compared with the actual cost of the building, and then, by comparing these figures, the value of the building grant is arrived at. If one gets too much in the way of a building grant, then, obviously, this is the wrong type of factory to come into that area, because it would have such a small residual value if the firm should go bankrupt, and B.O.T.A.C. will tend to refuse money as a loan to equip the factory.
  It would be very much better if the building grant were given on a flat percentage basis. The Toothill Report suggests 15 per cent., and the French complain that 20 per cent. is inadequate. I should like to see it at 25 per cent., without having the business of the assessor working out the value of the factory. If one is lucky enough to get Scottish Industrial Estates to build a factory to rent, the rent is quite low— from 2½ per cent. to 4 per cent. If the factory is built for one, and one has to buy it back over a period, the rate of interest at the moment is about 5½ per cent., repayable over ten years, which comes out at 13¼ per cent., which is a very great difference for a new company starting out, as compared with the 2½ per cent. in the case of renting a factory. It is far too big a difference, and, although one is buying the factory on hire purchase and it will become one's own at the end of ten years, one gets no building grant, which seems to me to be entirely illogical and a typical attempt at saving by the Treasury on the building of these factories.
  I think that, generally speaking, we are right in concentrating on the industrial areas of Scotland, but there is one passage on page 60 of the Report which makes me very angry. It is about the other development districts, such as Anstruther, Girvan, Rothesay, Sanquhar, Stranraer, Lesmahagow and Cumnock. The Report says:
  "One project was completed in 1961 and another was approved but not started at 31st March, with employment potentials of 100 and 50 respectively."

  721
  The Board of Trade seem to be too ashamed to say how little they have managed to do in these areas and do not give details in the case where the factory was completed.
  These places are the complete Cinder-elks of the Local Employment Act, and I am extremely indignant about the way in which Stranraer has been treated. We have a modern air base at West Freugh, which is used by such firms as Elliott Automation, Blackburn Aircraft and Ferranti, which shows the sort of work which is being done there, and in which the local people are being trained, but it is an open secret that the Minister of Aviation would like to close it down, although it has spent about half a million pounds on it. About a year ago, the "Midas" space project came up, which was absolutely ideal for such an area, but instead of it going there it went to an aerodrome near Carlisle, which was not even in a development district. I have never been able to understand that at all.
  Take the case of the great military port of Cairnryan, which was sold to scrap merchants, at the same time as the "Polaris" was brought in and placed in the most half-baked place imaginable— Holy Loch near Glasgow. I cannot understand any reason why it should have been sent up there, near the city of Glasgow, when Stranraer is just as close to Prestwick Airport as is Dunoon, if it comes to flying the crews borne to America. There is neglect of areas like Stranraer, where no Government Department will build an advance factory, and where there is no question of Scottish Industrial Estates building a factory to rent. All we can hope for there is to be able to borrow money at the rates I quoted earlier when we do not get a building grant, when we have an industry which wants to come into the area, which is very suitable for it, and includes people on the board of directors very experienced in that industry, and when the amount of finance available is, as the Toothill Report suggests in paragraphs 20 to 24, suitable for help by the Board of Trade.
  While I have great confidence in our new Secretary of State for Scotland and while I thoroughly welcome his appointment, and while I think the Board of Trade has done an extremely good job
  722
  on the whole in Scotland, I feel that I should be failing in my duty to my constituents, in view of the way in which Stranraer has been treated, if I did not vote against the Government in the Lobby tonight.
  7.28 p.m.
  Mr. J. Hill: The new Secretary of State for Scotland said that he was a Scot, but I am afraid that Scottish hon. Members on this side of the House will not welcome that statement very much after what he said to them today. We have been listening to a brief prepared, I presume, by the backroom boys and read by the new Secretary of State. He did not deviate from that brief, but there was nothing in it to tell us what steps he was to take to alleviate the problems facing Scotland now.
  Last week, the then Secretary of State made a statement about what was to happen to the mining industry. When he was pressed for details, he gave no answer, although those details were known to every newspaper in the country and were on the tape. If the new Secretary of State consults his right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, he may be told exactly what is proposed for the Scottish pits. The National Coal Board has now completed its survey and 27 pits in Scotland are due to be closed, possibly within a year while another 33 have a doubtful future and 46 are presumed safe.
  But will the 33 pits classed as doubtful close within three years? Will the Minister of Power tell us whether that is the case and whether within the next three years manpower within the Scottish coal industry will fall by nearly 24,000 men, and there will be no jobs to replace those which are lost? In Scotland we are convinced, and have been convinced for some time, that the Government aim for the Scottish industry to be run down to a minimum.
  Last year, although Scotland was struggling, the Minister of Power agreed that Scottish coal prices should be 10s. a ton higher than those in any other part of the country. The Government toll us that they are trying to attract industry to Scotland, but they impose conditions on the coal industry which make it impossible for the industry to compete

  723
  in the fuel market. The miners are constantly told that Scotland's coal industry is £100 million in the red and that the reason is low output. But last year output of coal in Scotland increased by almost 11 per cent., and, addressing the annual miners' conference at Skegness two or three weeks ago, Lord Robens said that we could be proud that output in the mining industry was increasing.
  What reward do the miners of Scotland get for the increased output, apart from insecurity and the fear of the loss of their jobs? When these 24,000 jobs go—as they will go unless the Government do something about it—there will be no other jobs to replace them. The former Secretary of State said that he would institute five new industrial estates, but what is the use of industrial estates if there is no industry for them? Are the Government prepared to accept responsibility and to direct industry— which is my view—or start industry themselves to provide jobs for displaced miners.
  My constituency is adjacent to the site of the new town about which we have heard so much. Two years ago, the Government introduced the Local Employment Act. The then Member for West Lothian and I were successful in getting the Calders area scheduled. Then we got the B.M.C. factory, which we were glad to have, but the President of the Board of Trade descheduled the area. What is now gumming up the works with the B.M.C. factory? There were great promises at the time about the creation of jobs and ancillary work and it was said that at the end of the day B.M.C. would employ between 5,000 and 6,000 men. But something went wrong somewhere and the pipeline is still choked.
  In answers to questions and in debates we have been repeatedly told about the number of jobs going to Scotland, and yet when the Minister of Power finally strangled the shale industry—and strangle it he did—I asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he was prepared to reschedule the Calders area. He then refused, but two days after the result of the West Lothian by-election was announced he rescheduled it without anyone asking him. At the time the Minister of Labour said
  724
  in reply to questions that there were between 8,000 and 10,000 potential jobs in the area. If those jobs are still there, why is it necessary to reschedule the area?
  When I asked for an advance factory to be built in the area to attract industry or ancillary employment, I was told that such building was not Government policy. But, with more courage than the Government, Midlothian County Council is building advance factories and attracting industrialists, something the Government should have been doing. It may interest the President of the Board of Trade to know that one of the sites in Midlothian near the B.M.C. factory, Burngrange, interested two industrialists who came to see the site and who were perfectly happy about it and the labour position until they were told that they would get no assistance from the Board of Trade, when they left. That is what the Government have been doing in an area where they could help to solve the unemployment problems of the centre of Scotland. The answer to all this is that the Government should give the miners and the Coal Board justice and a fair crack of the whip.
  Miss Harvie Anderson: Is it not a fact that out of the 10,000 men made redundant in the mines in 1961, 9,900 have been successfully re-employed?
  Mr. Hill: I agree, but they have been re-employed in the doubtful pits.
  Miss Harvie Anderson indicated dissent.
  Mr. Hill: The hon. Lady may shake her head, but that is true.
  The Government must accept responsibility for the trade which the Scottish coal mining industry is losing to imported oil. We are convinced that the Government must accept responsibility for the finances of the industry and subsidise it. Why not? The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) is against subsidising the coal industry, but is he also against subsidising agriculture and spending public money on shipbuilding and the steel industry and on bolstering up dying private enterprise? Why, then, should he be against money for the coal industry? I am convinced, as is my

  725
  trade union, that unless the coal industry has a fair crack of the whip it cannot compete with oil.
  Like the Government, we want to see the pits closed. We do not want men to spend the rest of their days employed in coal mines. But we do want security for them and their families, and that security cannot be attained unless the Government are prepared to bring in alternative industry. When they do so, we shall willingly say to them, "Close the lot." But at the moment it seems that the biggest export Scotland has is its young people.
  The National Coal Board is making no bones about this. It is telling Scottish miners who are losing their jobs that if they go to Yorkshire or to the Midlands of England they may get jobs and houses there. But we do not want them to leave. We want to keep our youth at home.
  Unless the Government do something about this, when the Prime Minister decides to hold the General Election—and it cannot come quickly enough—there will be more heads rolling. This time, however, it will not be the Prime Minister wielding the axe but the Scottish electorate. Many hon. Members opposite will not be back in this House after the election. The people of Scotland are tired of promises of jobs. We do not want "pie in the sky" but jobs for our people now—and it is the Government's job to give us those jobs.
  7.42 p.m.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. J. Hill) is rightly concerned about his area, whch is so dependent on one of the main industries in Scotland. He was courageous enough to come into the open and say that he disagreed with the speech made by his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman gave us, for the first time in this House, a clear statement of Labour Party policy, in that he said that there would be, in his view, no direction of industry and of course, no direction of labour. But I think that that did not appeal to some horn. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for Midlothian.
  Mr. J. Hill: I said that that was my opinion and it is still my opinion.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: Exactly. I thought the horn. Member was courageous to disagree with his own leader publicly in holding that view. We have had a clear statement of policy from the Leader of the Opposition. That being so, as neither direction of industry nor direction of labour would be carried out, it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman brought no fresh policy, except that he welcomed the idea of industrial estates and advance factories and also asked for a tougher policy on industrial development certificates.
  I now pay my tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay), who is not here at the moment, because I think that he has laid the foundations for the diversification of Scotland's economy. I should also like to wish my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State well, because I believe that he is tough and determined enough to do everything he possibly can for Scotland.
  We have had many analyses of Scotland's ills. I think that analysis can sometimes be overdone and that we perhaps overlook the fact, which was brought out by the Scottish Council, that although 50,000 jobs were lost in the two years up to July, 1961, 81,000 new ones were created. But the figures from July, 1961 to 1962 do not exist to show exactly what has happened up to date. The Council considers, however, that there is a drop in net growth due in part to what it calls a general drop in the industrial activity evident in England.
  As the Leader of the Opposition rightly says, we cannot discuss Scotland's problems unless at the same time we also pay attention to what is happening in the United Kingdom economy as a whole. The latest United Kingdom trading return figures are very interesting because they are bad at home and good abroad. For example, our exports are up by £12 million, which is a 9 per cent. rise so far in 1962, while our imports are down £10 million. The result is that the visible trade gap is down to only £27 million. There is an improvement in invisible earnings and, as we all know, personal savings are high, not least in Scotland.
  But at home sales have fallen and, therefore, one is bound to ask whether

  727
  it is safe to take, to some extent, a more reflationary policy. There are great difficulties in front of those trying to sell our exports. Everyone will have noticed that the rise in our export figures has been most striking in Europe, but Canada has raised tariffs around her and there is great uncertainty in America, which is now carrying out a "Buy American" campaign. It looks as if the markets for many traditional Scottish exports are going to be much more difficult in North America, while many countries are beginning to raise protective barriers around themselves.
  The result in this country as a whole is that, allied to uncertainty as to whether we are going into the Common Market, there is a general lack of confidence in the markets and in buying power. That has resulted in a lack of orders. I believe that a considerable potential of capital investment is held back at the moment for reasons of caution at a time of immense change and, unfortunately, world uncertainty.
  In this country, until a decision is made one way of another about the United Kingdom's external pattern of trade, this uncertainty will remain and will colour all our efforts either to help expand existing industry or to attract new industry to Scotland. I am driven to the conclusion that we have to treat Scotland and England in different respects, for there are certain incentives necessary to the Scottish economy which are not suitable at this time south of the Border because of the external difficulties to which I have drawn attention.
  The Scottish Council says that we ought to be able, on an average, to get 15,000 jobs a year until 1970 but that this is not possible unless we are doing it in what is really a more thrusting economy. There are certain matters of United Kingdom concern that I think would directly affect and help Scotland at once. Here I may not be at all popular with those hon. Members who represent coal-mining constituencies, because I feel that a reduction in the fuel tax would be an instant lift to industry, whereas tax incentives would be very much slower in working.
  I agree with what the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) said about Scotland as a whole being con-
  728
  sidered as a development district. I know that we have often discussed this. In a way, I have been against it because Aberdeen happens to be a development district, and obviously if Scotland were made a development district we in Aberdeen would not have quite the same possibilities of attraction as we have now. Even now, I am told that it is a bit difficult to keep Aberdeen as a development district because, at this time of the year, our unemployment figure is, happily, under the national average at just under 3 per cent.
  The time has come to regard Scotland as a separate region, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will give fresh thought to this and not reject matters which have often been considered by the Cabinet, and no doubt considered in the various Departments, but try to consider these factors in connection with it. The Scottish Council and the Toothill Committee recommended that public investment changes should have regard to regional conditions and suggested that it would not be inflationary, for example, to encourage construction and building north of the Border, while, for obvious reasons, holding it in check south of the Border. On the other hand, I think that even now an inflationary position is developing in the construction industry. For example, in my constituency there are demands for building to meet educational needs, hospital needs, and housing needs, and one of the most important things to be done is to have more local co-ordination between those authorities who want their building done at the same time. Would not it also be possible, for example, to have long-term interest rates reduced north of the Border? This would be of great benefit indeed.
  I very much welcomed the first act of the new Secretary of State for Scotland, which was to postpone the rerating of industry until 1966. However, I suggest that the statement made the other day in connection with coal mining, that it was proposed to build advance factories and certain industrial estates, seemed to imply that these estates or advance factories would not be placed in Chose parts of Scotland which were not affected by the coal-mining industry.
  As we know, the powers that are given to local authorities to build small advance factories or small industrial

  729
  estates allow them to have a grant for the purposes of servicing or clearing the sites, but they get no financial help towards the buildings. Therefore, should there not be a partnership between the Government and local authorities? If a local authority had the gumption, for instance in my area, to say, "We do not think that a large industrial estate would be suitable, but possibly a small one with one ox two small factories would be", why not have a partnership whereby the Government build the factories if the local authority is prepared to provide the basic need?
  The fact remains that according to all the analyses that we have had, we in Scotland have to depend on private industry for 80 per cent. of our production and expansion, and I think that not enough is known or said about what is being done in the expansion of the existing industries. For instance, in Aberdeen the Pittodrie Granite Turning Company is now producing the largest granite rollers in the world. One is 38 feet long, and 90 per cent. of the output goes in exports, to Finland, Norway, Sweden, Belgium and France and so on.
  Recently the Pneumatic Tool Company of Tullos has designed the Reich drill, which is the most modern rotary drill in the world. It is mobile and can work in rough territory on caterpillar tracks. It weighs over 38 tons. It has been exported to South Africa, Bechuanaland is interested in it, and the firm of Colvilles has asked for one for their work at Shap. But much of the work being done and the money being spent does not necessarily immediately employ more people. For instance, one can walk round Spiller's factory and see few men there because all the grain is moved through enormous pipes and elevators.
  Recently in connection with the fishing industry £500,000 was spent by one firm on cold storage. This provides employment in some of the ancillary trades, but it does not give a true picture of the potential employment which might be had if we had a different type of industry.
  Let us recognise what is being done. When we talk about emigration, let us remember that, whatever one thinks, emigration will always appeal to a large number of Scotsmen. It will appeal not
  730
  only because they like to live and work abroad, but because one cannot get over the fact that London is the financial capital of the world and there are many people who will always go out to seek such centres. Also let us not forget that this pull to the south is not peculiar to Scotland. Canada, which is a rich country full of natural resources, has a constant struggle to keep and establish her own separate identity.
  Do not let us underestimate the difficulties or the size of the task, because we are trying to do four things simultaneously. We are trying, as bankers of the sterling area, to keep a strong £. We are trying to get economic growth, steady prices, and full employment, all in the middle of the second industrial revolution.
  From the figures which have been given I believe that Scotland is on the move, that we have had enough of girning, and that if we are determined we shall succeed.
  7.57 p.m.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: I came to this House eleven years ago, and I have heard the speech to which I have just listened on eleven annual occasions. The speeches made by hon. Gentlemen opposite are always the same. They always refer to heavy unemployment in Scotland. Eleven years ago there were 52,000 people unemployed in Scotland, and the situation then was regarded as terrible. I remember hon. Gentlemen opposite saying how bad the situation was, what the Government should do to remedy it, what had to be done, and what would be done. Today, there are nearly 80,000 people unemployed, and similar speeches are being made.
  I agree with one point made by the hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir). In the past fortnight I have visited two modern firms. The one I saw at the weekend is a busy firm which twenty years ago would have employed 7,600 men and women to produce its present output. Today it employs 250. Another factory which twenty years ago would have employed 8,000 people today employs about 780. The fact is that new production industries are not large employment agencies. They produce large quantities

  731
  of goods, but they employ small quantities of labour.
  I believe in the direction of industry. The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) referred to Brittany having found a solution to the problem by the direction of industry. The French Government have a national plan. They take shares in an industry and undertake its direction. Near Orleans there is an overhead railway system acquired from Milngavie, and known as the Bannie Overhead Rail Plane—a Scottish invention. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) was with me when I went there. This has been done by the French Government. They are seeking contracts all over the world. This is State direction not of private enterprise but of Government enterprise.
  Hon. Members opposite have said that they are in favour of this sort of thing, but I was surprised when the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) said that he was in favour of Government institutions being directed to Scotland. In the eleven years that I have been here I have seen Government institutions taken out of Scotland and sent south—from Greenock, Alexandria, Clydebank, Dalmuir and Rosyth. We have seen Government industries directed away from Scotland. It appears that hon. Members opposite believe in the direction of industry if it is directed out of Scotland.
  Mr. Rankin: My hon. Friend will recollect that the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) wanted industry directed only into his division.
  Mr. Bence: Human nature being what it is, I can assure my hon. Friend that if I can get the Government to agree to the direction of industry to Scotland I shall try to get it directed to Dunbartonshire. I do not quarrel with the hon. Member on that score.
  The point is that in the modern industrial complex more and more people will be employed in ancillary services, with a rising standard of living. As a result of the techniques of modern production, high wages can be paid to a small number of people and a tremendous amount of social and cultural activity is created around that complex,
  732
  leading to the employment of more and more people in all sorts of services for the community. That is what happens in the South, but in Wales and Scotland, where the heavy industries are situated, many people are employed in production but very few in the ancillary social services outside, and there is a lower social standard. The Government must undertake some direction of State activity into Scotland, even if it has to come from the South.
  The Secretary of State, in what perhaps I ought to call a peroration—or was it something written in at the end of his brief?—frightened me, because he actually said that he believed that there would be a chance for Scotland when world conditions were right. In the eleven years that I have been here I have seen world trade expand, wages double and conditions vastly improve in the Midlands and the South, and in Germany, France, Belgium and Scandinavia. I have seen this happen in Italy, and in every industrial community in the world except Scotland. While all this has been going on unemployment in Scotland has increased. What sort of conditions must exist in the world before Scotland gets standards equal to what the rest of the world is now enjoying? My only conclusion is that the people of the rest of the world, outside the borders of Scotland, will all have to become millionaires.
  We hear a good deal about displaced miners and the need for their redeployment in other industries. I can assure the hon. Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) that in my constituency some of the displaced miners are over 45 years of age, and they cannot get jobs. Local authorities do not want people over 45 years of age, because of their superannuation schemes. This consideration also applies in industry. When I worked for B.M.C. in the Midlands it did not want men over 45 because of its superannuation scheme. But some of the miners who are being displaced and who are 45 years of age or more fought in the last war. They have families. Many such miners in my constituency have five, six or seven children. These men are being put out of work by the closing down of pits, and they will never be able to get other work.
  Two of the pits in Twechar, in my constituency, are scheduled to be closed,

  733
  and when they are closed the mining industry in that area will be finished. Yet a new town is being built which will ultimately have a population of 70,000. What the people there will do, heaven only knows. Figures of new jobs becoming available are bandied about the House. New jobs are being provided in Dalmuir, by the firm of Babcock and Wilcox. But a Royal Ordnance Factory there was closed down, and 1,800 men lost their jobs. The firm of Babcock and Wilcox will employ 1,000 men. It is said that we have got 1,000 new jobs, but this is merely a transfer of old jobs into new jobs. This is how we have been hoodwinked up to now. But the people of Scotland refuse to be hoodwinked any further.
  The Scottish Industrial Estates had a piece of land on Clydebank which was scheduled for industrial development. This was sold or leased, two or three years ago, and I understand that it was taken by Remington-Rand. There it is today, covered with weeds. Nobody else can use it. Why should sanction be given to Scottish Industrial Estates to sell or lease a piece of land scheduled fox industrial development when the company which takes it over does not use it? Will the President of the Board of Trade consider all the facts about this piece of land in Dalmuir, which I understand is held by Remington-Rand? Is that firm going to build a factory there? If it does not want the land, let it be bought back by compulsory purchase order at the price paid for it.
  Mr. Ross: They will not do that.
  Mr. Bence: Why should not they?
  Mr. Ross: If my hon. Friend studies the last Town and Country Planning Act passed by this Government he will see that it was the precursor to the considerable rise that has taken place in land prices, and it could not be bought back for the price which the company paid for it.
  Mr. Bence: There we are, then. But we know of cases where Departments of State have sold land at very low prices and have had to pay fancy prices to get it back.
  Little industrial land is scheduled for development in Kirkintilloch, but there is to be a very big overspill from
  734
  Glasgow. Kirkintilloch is trying to get industry from Glasgow, and Glasgow is trying to get industry itself. Who will win the tussle? This is a serious business for towns like Milngavie and Kirkintilloch, who have to take the overspill from Glasgow.
  I have been given figures relating to five industries. In one it takes £23,000 of capital to employ one man. In the case of the oil industry, the cost is higher. In the lowest—modern light engineering—it costs £12,000. I am assured that those figures have been increasing, and will continue to increase, and the longer we delay in getting industry to move into Scotland the higher those costs will be. This trend applies to public buildings of all kinds, and all sorts of capital accumulation. Real capital is becoming more and more expensive. The longer we delay the more difficult it will be to solve the problem of Scotland, and the more future generations will condemn the party opposite. They may even condemn this institution.
  8.10 p.m.
  Miss Harvie Anderson: I am glad to have had the good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because I want to follow the theme underlying the speech of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence). I wish to concentrate on what is, unfortunately, a problem relevant to a vital sector of industrial relations, known as the problem of redundancy. I do not think that it can have escaped notice that the speeches in this debate have revealed an underlying anxiety about this problem.
  I understand that the object of the debate today is to help Scottish industry. As I see it, there is one great difficulty which we face. Those of us who represent Scottish constituencies are so aware of the difficulties confronting Scottish industry that we tend to convey to the world an image of this problem and thereby overcast the excellent work being done and the excellent workmanship which is available in Scotland. But in Scottish industry there is too much old-fashioned thinking and there is stalemate in method. We have "go slows" and demarcation disputes, such as are to be found in England,

  735
  and this attitude is to a great extent, due to the problem of insecurity. The problem of insecurity of tenure in employment arises undoubtedly from a background of possible redundancy which must exist in the minds of many people.
  Those who experienced life in the 1930s or who were brought up during that period must have a feeling of fear in the back of their minds which plays a major part in their attitude to their work. I do not believe that fear is the only motive which lies behind the difficulties we face, but I think that fear is a much more real motive than many of us are prepared to accept. Therefore, I believe there to be an urgent need for better understanding, on the one hand, by the Government and by management of the psychology of employees, and on the other hand, I believe there to be need for the employees to understand the economic forces which control the destiny of this island and also the destiny of the employees themselves. I believe it vital that there should be a better interchange of ideas with the hope of achieving a better understanding. If, as I believe, some form of security of employment is a necessary ingredient in industry, I consider that this is a matter of over-riding importance which should be given great consideration now—much greater consideration than it has received up to the present time.
  Let us consider the effect of this insecurity as a whole. Surely it is devastating, because it is reflected in an attitude which is against progressive change. There is also the feeling that redundancy will result from progress and that is a feeling which we ought to dispel. If new thinking is required for this problem, as I believe that it is, we must evolve a remedy for redundancy. I do not believe that that remedy lies necessarily in that phase of which we have been speaking today. We have had, and are having, experience of the period between present and future employment which is so unsettling. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. J. Hill) and I have crossed swords on this point, but I believe that the majority of those who have become redundant in some of our major industries have been re-employed.
  736
  The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), from a sitting position, interjected and voiced what I think is the main anxiety, that young people are not going into these industries.
  Miss Herbison: Hear, hear.
  Miss Harvie Anderson: This feeling that there is of the fear of redundancy and the necessity for re-employment runs right through the age groups and affects the young people so that their minds turn against the progress which we desire to see in Scottish industry. Some new thinking has been done by Scottish industrialists, and I think it right to put forward what many people have already heard about—the plan advanced by the chairman of Thermotank Limited. We should welcome new thinking on these lines. The concern of the chairman of that firm is to find a solution to the problem created by this feeling of fear and insecurity which lies behind redundancy which, in turn, has such a bad effect on progress in industry.
  Mr. Rankin: Does the hon. Lady realise that today the greatest handicap facing Scottish industrialists is the fact that the cost of boiler fuel in Scotland is 25s. a ton greater than in England? That bears on the problem of redundancy.
  Miss Harvie Anderson: It is unlikely that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) and I would come to the same conclusion. I think that the reasons for the difficulties which we are experiencing in Scotland today are more widespread and deeply rooted than the rather simple fact which he has mentioned.
  Mr. Rankin: It is not a simple fact.
  Miss Harvie Anderson: May I return to the theme which I have been trying to follow? I am sure that the hon. Member for Govan has been listening eagerly to every word I have said. I wsih to refer to the solution which has been put forward by the chairman of Thermotank Limited, who is a young and forceful personality in Scottish industry. It was also advanced by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) in his Redundancy Bill.
  As I have said, I believe it is time that we gave thought to this problem and

  737
  began to think out some adequate solution. It has been suggested that the only solution is a national one and I believe that to be true, because redundancy reverberates nationally. We do not want to tackle this thing in piecemeal fashion. If we regard it as a national problem we must face reality and the need for an employment code binding the employer and the employee.
  Having envisaged this, we must accept the need for redundancy payments, under conditions acceptable to management and men, and I 'think that Mr. Iain Stewart's suggestion of a national mobility trust is not very wide of the mark in the next phase. This would be a trust administered largely by the T.U.C., which in any successful scheme of this kind would have a major part to play. Under such a scheme, the board of any company have an obligation to establish an acceptable two-way communication. Its object again must be that one side understand better what the other side is driving at and why, because forces on both sides are very often outside the control of the individuals concerned.
  These are provocative suggestions. They have been made by others but they have not been made often enough and they have not given rise to sufficient thought from those who must put them into operation. They reflect new, but I believe useful, thinking. They have been discussed in political, trade union and industrial circles. However, they 'have to be much more widely discussed and some solution arrived at to enable this changing pattern of Scottish industry to be not only the reality we hope it will be but more easy for those who are bound to be adversely affected in the welcome change.
  The hon. Member for Midlothian very wisely painted this out by saying what I have heard from miners so many times, that they do not want their young people to go into the mines because they want a progressive industry such as the hon. Member fox Dunbartonshire, East has illustrated, which brings in its wake good wages and a high standard of living. If we in Scotland are to face up to this great change from our narrow and heavy industries, we must do it by protection in this way.
  In the minute or two remaining to me I want to put to the President of the
  738
  Board of Trade a constituency point about which I feel very deeply. Although we have to go on a national basis toward progress and new thinking for new industries, we must maintain in some adequate or improved form the industries whereby Scotland has lived far generations. This includes a number of industries perhaps small by the standards of industry in the latter half of the twentieth century.
  In my constituency the knitwear industry is doing what has been an up-to-date and thriving trade. At the moment it is being throttled and nearly killed by imports from another part of the Commonwealth. I realise the difficulties presented by the fact that the imports come from the Commonwealth but I beg my right hon. Friend to look at this before it is too late, because although great emphasis has been placed today on the old industries of Scotland declining and changing, the woollen industry in all its aspects is essential to Scotland and will be essential for some years to come. I earnestly ask that consideration be given towards that support now before it presents my right hon. Friend with the problem which the heavy industries present him with today.
  8.23 p.m.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I am on my feet on behalf of small com-munities—'Blackridge, Stoneyburn, Fauldhouse, Winch-burgh, Seafield, and Livingston Station and other communities up and down central Scotland—in the belief that human beings should not be obliged against their will to leave their homes, their relatives and their friends and go away in search of work; that children should not have their schooling interrupted merely because father has to go south to England or to Canada; that teen-agers are entitled as of night to work in or near their own home towns without this dreadful business of travelling twenty miles to work and twenty miles back, which not only eats into their pockets but, which is far more important to me, injures their health, and in the belief that those who are "too old" at 45 or 55 should be given other work.
  What this amounts to is that we should have public works. I am on my feet on behalf of certain practical public works. There are two objections. It

  739
  may be said that public works interfere with freedom. Let us be clear about this freedom. Even at this late hour I make no apologies for discussing freedom Which is the more important—the freedom to spend money as one pleases or the freedom to work, the freedom of investment or the freedom of teen-agers to find work in their own home towns?
  Again there is the question of cost It may be said, "He is suggesting public works. He is inexperienced. He will learn". When many hon. Members were in Parliament in 1945 I was only twelve years old. That was an hour of national need. To these small communities in Scotland on whose behalf I am speaking this is also an hour of national need. I can only reflect that when in 1942 it was necessary to build Hurricanes the accountant did not have his way. In 1962 let us no longer be governed by accountants and Treasury officials.
  Without making a personal attack, I as a young man sadly ask one of my former heroes as an economist, Professor Cairncross, "Have you lost your soul? In 1944 you were suggesting that public works should be done inversely as private investment so that people in areas which needed it would benefit". I of all people can respect a person for changing his mind, but I think that we are entitled to know why the Treasury has changed its mind on the usefulness of public works.
  The first public work which I suggest is the reconstruction of Turnhouse. After all, this should be non-controversial, because the Toothill Committee said that the main runway is wrongly sited to the prevailing wind and the subsidiary runway is not long enough. Surely there is a case, remembering that it would give employment to shale miners otherwise too old at 50, to carry out the major re-construcion of an airport where business will grow, with the likely development of Livingstone and in the light of the development at Bathgate and the construction of the Forth Road Bridge.
  The second of the public works—this is very relevant in the light of what the Secretary of State told us about creating the conditions in which new industry can flourish—is the electrification of the railway line which goes between Airdrie and Edinburgh. This is not merely a
  740
  constituency point. If Bathgate is to be the growth point of the whole of the Scottish economy, facilities must be created, and created in good time. Besides this, electrification would provide a lot of work, which is needed right now.
  The third public works scheme is this. I do not say that this should be sited in West Lothian or near it. Perhaps East Fife or Ayrshire would be better. Two major power stations of the Kincardine Mackenzie type should be erected using pulverised fuel. If the mining industry is to be helped, perhaps the stations could be run with a standard, if low quality, product such as pulverised coal, possibly forcing people to use electricity in their homes. However, this makes sense in the light of the fact that the Zeta heavy hydrogen process has not been all that was expected of it. Hunters-ton has been shown to be relatively four times more expensive per kilowatt hour for the capital invested than a power station of the type of Kincardine or Cockenzie.
  There is also the question of the chemical industry, which depends on coal as a raw material. It is time that hon. Members looked at the Wilson Report on the uses of coal as a derivative. After all, by turning coal into carbon monoxide and hydrogen and then synthesising it all sorts of products, from synthetic rubber to polyurethene, can be made. This is the basis of one of the industries of the future. It can be prefectly easily done, because it is the logical extension of the work of the National Coal Board.
  Time is running short, but I must make one more point. The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) spoke about a fifth university. This would create employment, but I am interested unashamedly not in a fifth university but in a sixth university, a seventh university and an eighth university. It may be said that this is because I am an educationist. On Sunday morning I went to see the National Union of Mineworkers at the Woodend pit near Armadale which has been scheduled as a "B" pit. The president of the Woodend miners did not say, "Fight as hard as you can to keep Woodend open". He wants Woodend kept open, but that was not his first request. His first request was to point

  741
  at the youngsters round about and say, "Tarn, do you know that in fifteen years' time anybody who does not go to a university will be considered ignorant? "That is not my remark. It is the remark of the president of the Woodend miners. I think he is right.
  Added to this, during the West Lothian by-election I was frequently asked whether I did not think it was wrong that Scots should be excluded from university places while Englishmen, Africans and Indians came to Scottish universities. I shook my head and did not give the questioners the answer that they wanted. I said I thought it was quite right that Englishmen, Nigerians and Indians should be welcomed at out universities, because that is the sort of thing a university is for. A university becomes valuable if all sorts of people can be brought together in it. At the same time, it is a sad situation that we have to turn away Scots. Some may think it equally sad, if not sadder, that we have to turn away Nigerians, Ghanaians and Indians who want to come here.
  This is the argument for setting up in Scotland now four universities, because they take a long time to grow. If I am still here in fifteen years' time I shall be very surprised if any hon. Member says that we have a surplus of university places. We can do this. It would help our brickworks. It would also help the many people of 50 to 55 who could work for the university establishments as they grew up. Let us get on with the job very quickly.
  There is one question that hon. Members opposite must answer. I am not saying this in a sneering way. It is a question that we all have to answer. If the Russians can develop the Arctic, if the Israelites can develop the desert and if the Brazilians can develop the jungle, is it really beyond the wit of Her Majesty's Government to develop the far-off regions of Britain? When I speak up for Scotland, I also speak up for Anglesey, Northern Ireland and any other parts of Britain which might be in a similar situation.
  8.32 p.m.
  Mr. James H. Hoy: We have had a rather interesting debate. I want to open my remarks by welcoming the new Secretary of State for Scotland
  742
  to his present office. It is a very high position in Scotland. It is also a very onerous position, and on the right hon. Gentleman's shoulders will fall the responsibility for guiding Scotland in the months that lie ahead. I have already conveyed the condolences and sympathy of my hon. Friends and myself to the ex-Secretary of State in view of the very personal troubles which he has been suffering for a long time.
  Having welcomed the Secretary of State to his office, I must tell him that I could not welcome the speech which he read this afternoon. He said that enormous tasks lie ahead of us in building up our industry and new industry, and that that was what Scotland required. It is not good enough to make such statements 11 years after the present Government have been in office. What have the Government been doing for 11 years when the newly appointed Secretary of State finds he must tell us that that is the job that Scotland has to undertake? Did he not realise that when he was saying that he was condemning every one of his predecessors and the successive Governments of which he has been a member?
  I did not quite understand what the right hon. Gentleman meant when he used another phrase. He said that we must let other people know that manpower is Scotland's greatest asset. What did he mean by that? Did he mean that we have so many unemployed that they can be used up if industry only would come into Scotland? Surely unemployment is not an asset. It is a condemnation of the system under which those men have been condemned to live. Instead of regarding it as an asset, the Secretary of State ought to have been sorry at having to report such a thing to the House.
  The right hon. Gentleman also said that the Government will have to trigger off action and give people the facilities for working and create a new economic situation in Scotland. But the right hon. Gentleman did not say whose action the Government were going to trigger off. The right hon. Gentleman offered no solution at all. All I can tell him about his speech is that it was only because of the usual generosity of my hon. Friends with regard to a maiden speech that he got through quite as easily as he did.
  Mr. Willis: We shall not do it again.
  Mr. Hoy: I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance.
  The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) made an interesting speech. He spoke about the part that afforestation could play in Scotland's economy. But he did not face the issue which the Forestry Commission has been facing, and it is not a new one. In Scotland today the Forestry Commission employs about 4,000 people, maintains about 2,000 miles of road and has an acreage extending to about 1½ million acres. The one thing that prevents the Commission from developing its work is the lack of land.
  Sir J. Gilmour: It was for that very reason that I suggested that agriculture and forestry should be put under the same control. It seems to me that there is competition between the two. We need co-ordination of policy to ensure that the very best use is made of the available land.
  Mr. Hoy: Of course we have co-ordination at present. I was in the north of Scotland recently addressing the farmers of Aberfeldy. They were bringing this to my attention, but they are under the Secretary of State for Scotland. He is the Minister responsible. It is no use the hon. Baronet talking about co-ordination if the principal defect is that the Commission does not have sufficient land. He knows as well as I that the main reason is that to such a great extent land in Scotland remains in private hands and private landlords resist attempts to get land for this purpose.
  I look back to the days when Lord Robinson was chairman of the Forestry Commission. I remember the attacks made on him because he endeavoured to get more and more land to build up the Forestry Commission in Scotland and elsewhere. I agree with what the hon. Member said, but the test would be if he would lend assistance to the Forestry Commission to get the land it wants. Even at present because of the scarcity of land the Commission is compelled to plant on land which previously was regarded as unplantable. I agree that great inroads can be made, but that will require the Government—this is where responsibility falls on the Secre-
  744
  tary of State—not only to take the power but to use the power, to give power to the Commission to buy the land necessary for the work it wants to undertake
  We had another interesting speech this afternoon. It was made by the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir). We were delighted to hear her. She was the only one who spoke about "girning" over Scotland. She has to do that because she comes here so seldom that she has to record her attendance. She spoke about special interest rates for Scotland as a way in which industry could be attracted there, especially to the north of Scotland. This was a change. On many occasions my hon. Friends have asked if we could have special interest terms to attract industry, to allow capital development, to build new factories and provide employment, but that has been laughed at by hon. Members opposite. The hon. Lady has at last been converted to the view that such special interest rates are a possibility.
  Perhaps she had been converted by the way in which the Government have been able to hand out cheap money for motor car development in Scotland. I am not criticising that but we must remember, especially hon. Members opposite, that all these large developments taking place in Scotland at present are either through nationalised industry or industries which are receiving State aid. Not a single development is being done without that Even the industry to which the Secretary of State is so proud to belong could not live without a State subsidy. I will say this: it was a pleasant relief for the first time for a long while to have a speech from a Secretary of State for Scotland which did not include the word "pipeline". I give the President of the Board of Trade due warning that he had better not introduce it.
  The need for this debate requires no explanation. On previous occasions my hon. and right hon. Friends have been accused of carping criticism, what the noble Lady described as girning. As I said a few moments ago in her absence, she has to use these words in between her visits to the United States because that records her attendance here. That is the kind of thing hon. Members opposite have accused us of, but on this

  745
  occasion, except for that one example and a little from the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore), it has not been levelled against this side of the House.
  That was because all realise the very difficult position in which Scotland finds itself. It has been the job of my hon. Friends throughout the years, not only this afternoon but on many occasions, to draw the attention of Ministers to the economic position in Scotland. Everyone admits that what they have been saying for years has been perfectly justified. I say to the President of the Board of Trade that he was just as guilty of this sort of criticism as any of his hon. Friends. It was when unemployment was mounting this year, even as late as April, that the right hon. Gentleman was saying to the House:
  "There is nothing much wrong, except in the eyes of hon. Members opposite."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April, 1962; Vol. 657, c. 1188–9.]
  I am certain he will not want to repeat that statement tonight. He said it in the month of April, which was a month that did not pass unnoticed in Scotland. At the bag inning of that month Scotland thought and thought Tightly, that its share of unemployment was already too great, but the month had hardly started before we were informed through the columns of the Scotsman of further blows to follow. I remember opening the Scotsman on 4th April. Double headlines on the right-hand side said:
  "Death Sentence For Shale Oil.
  Industry Has Only Six Weeks to Live.
  1,050 Men Will Be Left Without Jobs."
  In the left-hand corner of the paper it was said:
  "Fight To Save The North British Loco Works Fails.
  1,400 Employees Face Redundancy."
  Strangely enough, the only real ray of light that was shown in the columns of the Scottish Press that day was the announcement about the building of a ship at Aberdeen. A cargo and passenger vessel had been launched which had been built in the shipyards of a well-known firm in Aberdeen. This was the one ray of light. The only comment that I make about it is that the ship was ordered by the Secretary of State for Scotland, paid for by Government money, to serve a nationalised service.
  746
  Not even the leader of the Liberal Party objected to that. Apparently, he was delighted to welcome this ship, nationalised and paid for by the Government, into his constituency. I say to hon. Members opposite that if they pause to think of this little report there may be a lesson for them in Scotland. It may be that Government action can succeed in Scotland where private enterprise has failed.
  If the beginning of the month was bad, worse was to follow. Before the month had passed, we had a visit from the chairman of the National Coal Board, who, amidst the monastic simplicity and frugality of Gleneagles Hotel, announced that further pit closures would take place in Scotland and that thousands more miners would possibly lose their jobs. This, of course, caused consternation in Scotland. As usual, it was my hon, Friends who responded quickly and demanded from the Government an immediate debate.
  It was held upstairs and we had a two-day debate in the Scottish Grand Committee. It was anticipated that the miners would lose their jobs. I asked the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland if he could say what consideration the Government had given to this problem. The hon. Gentleman replied:
  "The hon. Member for Leith referred to the anxiety which has been caused as the result of a speech made over the weekend by the Chairman of the National Coal Board. I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power about this, and he has assured me that nothing that was said gave any final figures, or indeed, any figures at all, about manpower. I know that estimates have subsequently appeared in the Press, but these are not official. The position is that the Board is still working on the problem, and when it has arrived at definite estimates it will, as is customary, inform the union."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 3rd May, 1962; c. 15.]
  He gave us no figures and no information as to what was happening. That is one of our chief complaints against the Scottish Office because this performance was repeated by the ex-Secretary of State for Scotland last week. In fact, in making the announcement, he did not disclose a single word about how many miners would be involved. Unless the Scottish Office appreciates the significance of these changes and the position of the men who will lose their jobs and plans alternative employment for them.

  747
  it will be impossible for Scotland even to maintain its present position.
  If the Government find it difficult to understand it in that way, let me put it as simply as I can. As a result of the recent statement on pit closures, some 6,000 miners in central Fife will lose their employment. This means 6,000 fewer jobs. What steps are the Government taking to make good the loss? This is of vital importance not only to central Fife, but to the whole of Scotland, because, unless we provide suitable alternative employment, the drift from Scotland will continue.
  This afternoon, in an excellent speech, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition gave some figures to show just how this was affecting Scotland. I will give the House some more, though I do not wish to use too many figures because I always remember the story told by our late colleague, Tom Hubbard, who was the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs. He was at a meeting accompanied by a supporting speaker, and the supporting speaker said that he would not bore the audience with statistics; he could safely leave that to the candidate. I do not want to be in a similar position tonight, but I shall put a few figures to the House to prove my case.
  Since 1956, the total working population of Scotland has fallen by about 38,000. During the past year, the total population of Scotland fell by a further 24,000. This has happened in face of the fact that the population in the rest of the country has been increasing. By comparison, Scotland's position has worsened.
  The reason is not difficult to find. It can be summed up in one word, unemployment. As my right hon. Friend said, our unemployment figures are always twice as large as those for the rest of the country. Compared with London, the South-East and the Midlands our position is even worse. Taking the last five years, unemployment in London and the south-eastern area varied between 0·9 per cent. at its lowest and 1·3 per cent. at its highest. In the Midlands, during the same period, unemployment ranged between 1·0 per cent. and 1·6 per cent. The figures for
  748
  Scotland show that our percentage rose from 2·6, the best, to 4·4 per cent. In Scotland's best year unemployment was twice as heavy as the worst figure in London and the South-East. That is the comparison.
  Our present total of 72,143 men, women, boys and girls unemployed is 12,380 more than the total a year ago. Included in that figure—this is terribly important—are 2,200 boys under 18 and 1,305 girls under 18 signing on at the employment exchanges. There is something wrong with a system which condemns young people under 18 years of age, just out of school, to go to the employment exchange and be offered no means of earning a livelihood.
  Lest hon. Members should get it into their minds that this is just a transitory phase through which the people of Scotland are passing, it is as well for the House to know that over 60 per cent.— nearly two out of every three—of the 73,000 unemployed in Scotland have been signing at the employment exchanges for eight weeks or more. We have this hard core of unemployed and, as my right hon. Friend said, all this is reflected in our figures of industrial production which show that, between 1954 and 1961, while Britain's level of production rose by 20 per cent. Scotland's rose by only half as much. When we remember, as we have remembered today, that Britain's record is about the worst in Europe, we realise that Scotland is all that much worse off. The people of Scotland want to know what will be done about it.
  The demand for action does not come only from these benches. Many have joined in the cry, and it was interesting to hear the voices of one or two hon. Members opposite joining in this afternoon. The Convention of Royal Burghs of Scotland has spoken out. Let me remind the House of what was said in April this year in a report in the Press about the Convention:
  "The convention unanimously adopted a motion urging the Government to adopt a ' sincere and vigorous' policy on direction of industry to underdeveloped areas. The motion, by the commissioner for Leven, Provost William Laing, asked the convention to express concern and deplore the ' indifferent attitude' of the Government towards ' the alarming decline in Scotland's traditional industries and consequent unemployment'."

  749
  Let me remind the Government once more that that was the unanimous finding of the Convention of Royal Burghs of Scotland.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) made some suggestions this afternoon about how this problem should be tackled. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) also had some suggestions to make. We on this side have made many suggestions for dealing with this problem in these debates. If the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South is interested in the Labour Party's policy, let her consult the programme issued by the Scottish Labour Party Let Scotland Prosper and the booklet Signposts for the Sixties, and she will find out what we mean.
  Quick action must be taken if we are to stave off a worsening of the position. I suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that Government orders can be placed quickly even with existing firms in Scotland. This would help to stave off a certain amount of unemployment. There may be some little difficulty in convincing certain people in the South. I heard only last week, when travelling up with one of the greatest industrialists in Scotland if not in Britain, that his concern was being persuaded by the Government to place an order in the South rather than in Scotland because it was much more suitable to the social and administrative convenience of certain officials.
  The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll)The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll) indicated dissent.
  Mr. Hoy: Oh, yes, it was. It is no use the President of the Board of Trade indicating that that is not so, because I shall show him that it is true. This is one of the reasons why we do not get as much development in Scotland from Government sources as we should. The Government could quite well do this and it would do considerable good to Scotland without having a bad effect on the South.
  We have suggested for a long time that advance factories should be built. I was a little disappointed with the Secretary of State's speech this afternoon in that he did not expand the statement of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Power
  750
  who last week, in trying to soften the blow of pit closures, said that we should have some new estates, new sites and new factories. If the President of the Board of Trade cannot tell us exactly where the factories are to be, surely he can tell us how many factories the Government have decided to build, how many jobs will be provided by them and when they will be built, because urgency is the keynote of this action.
  Even if all these temporary measures are taken, they can be regarded as no more than palliatives for Scotland. What is wanted is a long-term plan to allow Scotland to play its part in the economic recovery of our country as a whole. Simply to close down railways and mines for bookkeeping purposes is not planning. What we should be doing, and what the Government should be doing, is finding out what part these industries will play in Scotland's future. Certainly, it might be interesting to know what part the railways will play in a co-ordinated transport system that will best suit the industrial and social needs of Scotland.
  The decay of old industries makes the need for new ones urgent and imperative. The case for this is put succinctly in Signposts for the Sixties. It contains new ideas. The right hon. Gentleman might not agree with them, nor might any hon. Member opposite, but at least they are put forward as a contribution to be discussed and as something which might provide a solution. At least, they are a contribution in ideas which the Government have not equalled.
  In Signposts for the Sixties, it is stated:
  " How can Britain make up the lost ground in the scientific revolution? The first thing to be done is to reconstruct and greatly to enlarge the existing National Research Development Corporation.
  In its new form, the Corporation should be authorised to engage in production, either in its own establishments, through the creation of subsidiary productive undertakings, or by joint enterprises with private companies which have the expertise to develop new products but lack the resources."
  Does any hon. Member opposite find objection with that? It continues:
  " For a fraction of the cost of one of the missile contracts, the National Research Development Corporation could stimulate research directed towards promoting new developments in civil industry, for example

  751
  for new advances in textile machinery, shipbuilding techniques, machine tools or electronics. Encouragement could be given to young scientists to form research and development teams to work on particular programmes."
  It goes on to develop the case for State-owned industries if they are necessary. It expresses willingness to go into partnership with private enterprise to exploit these resources, on behalf not only of Scotland, but of Britain. If all this is to be done, we have to consider whether we have the organisation to carry it through. This is important. I agree with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), who raised this aspect. This might well mean a new department in the Scottish Office, not all on its own, but a department working in conjunction with, or as part of, a larger development corporation which would revitalise our whole country.
  We will expand as a nation if we are prepared to devote a greater part of our income to work of that kind. In Scotland, we will be only too willing to play our part along with the rest of the country, because we do not believe that we can shut ourselves off from the rest of Great Britain. All we ask is the opportunity to play our part in developing our resources and to put our country into the forefront of the European nations, as it was for so long. These are plans that will call for action, for work and for determination. I am bound to say that I do not think that lead can come from right hon. and hon. Members who occupy the benches opposite.
  9.4 p.m.
  The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): It is just over three years since I last took part in a Scottish debate on industry and employment. I am glad to have the opportunity of taking part once again, particularly as on the previous occasion I followed immediately the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) and I find that I am doing so once again.
  If I may be allowed to make a comparison, I think that tonight's debate has been better than the one in which we both took part three years ago, because I understand there has been an unofficial arrangement whereby hon. Members on both Slides would limit their speeches to about fifteen minutes. As a result,
  752
  more hon. Members have been able to speak than on the previous occasion. I therefore endorse the suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition that Members representing English constituencies might do well to come to Scottish debates. If they had come in greater numbers today, they would have attended a model debate excellently conducted by both sides. Despite the fact that so many hon. Members limited their speeches to a few minutes' duration, it was not possible for all hon. Members to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) was anxious to make his contribution to the debate, as was the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). [HON. MEMBERS: "And many more."] Of course, I cannot name them all, but I thought that I had been fair by mentioning one from each side. I am sure that anyone who knows about Scottish debates will know that inevitably there are some disappointed Members.
  On a matter of detail, before I turn to my main speech, I shall be most grateful if the hon. Member for Leith will give me details of the contract to which he referred. I appreciate that he probably did not wish to give details in public, but if he cares to let me know about them privately, I shall be glad to look into the matter straight away.
  I have always been interested in the problems and opportunities of Scotland, and it would perhaps be right for me to mention to the House that I am planning to pay an official visit to Scotland lasting just over two years. [Laughter.] I should like to spend two years in Scotland. This is an official visit of two days towards the end of August, and among other engagements I shall visit industrial estates in Dundee and South Fife and firms in the Glasgow and Edinburgh areas. I hope to meet members of the Scottish Council, of the Glasgow and Edinburgh Chambers of Commerce, of the Scottish T.U.C. and of the Lord Provost of Dundee's Development of Industry Committee.
  I thought that I would clear out of the way one or two matters which have been raised in the course of the debate but which are not central parts of my own speech. I want to deal first with what the right hon. Gentleman said about Britain's place in the production

  753
  league table. I know that this is a subject which is often referred to in economic debates. On this occasion the right hon. Gentleman suggested that we ware near the bottom of the production league table. I should like to refer to another league table in which we are at the top.
  Mr. Ross: Cost of living.
  Mr. Erroll: We are at the top of (the employment table—and that applies to Scotland. The unemployment rate in Scotland compares very well with that of other countries. For example, although unemployment in Scotland during last winter was 4 per cent. one should compare it with 5½ per cent. in. Austria, 8½ per cent. in Belgium, 8½ per cent. in Canada, 10½ per cent. in Denmark, 7½ per cent. in Italy, 6½ per cent. in the United States, and 8 per cent. in the centrally planned country of Yugoslavia. I mention these figures to show that there are other league tables. It may be that the higher rates of unemployment in those countries are partly responsible for the greater rate of increase of production, but I do not intend to debate that tonight. I intended merely to show that taking league tables can lead to some irrelevant arguments. I will not continue any further on that theme.
  I want to deal with the phrase "in the pipeline", which has become a convenient form of shorthand in the House for describing jobs which are in prospect and which will arise as a result of I.D.Cs being granted or factories being built. Would hon. Members prefer us to say nothing about what we think the prospects will be in the various areas, particularly those in their own constituencies? If they prefer that we say nothing, we can stop all talk of jobs which have been referred to as "in the pipeline". Personally, I believe it to be right that we as a Government should pass on the fullest possible information of what the firm industrial prospects are both for the benefit of hon. Members and for the benefit of their constituents. Their constituents matter in this as much as do hon. Members. I do not mind being knocked about and laughed at in the House on the subject of the phrase "in the pipeline", or any other crack. What matters is that we should try to
  754
  help those who are wanting and waiting for jobs. I think that we should tell them as much as we possibly can.
  I have therefore had an inquiry made to see whether the information which we gave in the past about prospects has proved to be reasonably accurate in fulfilment. That is what really matters. I think that if we have been reasonably accurate in the past, it is fair and right that we should go on doing it, but if we have been wildly out it is perhaps better that I should not give any estimates about the future.
  We could not possibly look at all types of industrial projects throughout Scotland because there was too much variety, but we had a special investigation into the electrical engineering industries and into all projects new to Scotland since the war which were in operation in 1962. In the case of new industries, the total number of jobs estimated to arise between 1960 and 1962 was 55,000. By May, 1962, the companies concerned were actually employing 51,000 extra workers, with another seven months still to go. In the case of the electrical engineering industry, the total estimated number of extra jobs was 18,300, and by May, 1962, the companies concerned were employing 17,700 workers, still with seven months to go. I mention this to show the House that in fact our estimates of jobs in the pipeline, a phrase which is laughted at, has been remarkably accurate over a period of years, and, unless hon. Members would prefer that we did not make reference to jobs in prospects, I propose to continue to do so.
  Mr. Bence: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to jobs in the pipeline running into Scotland, but perhaps he could say how many jobs there were in the pipelines running out?
  Mr. Erroll: I could with notice, of course.
  A question was put to me by a number of hon. Members about research projects going into Scotland The National Research Development Corporation is a corporation sponsored by the Board of Trade, and we have asked it to bear Scottish firms in mind when placing development contracts. The Corporation had, by mid-May 1962, licensed no fewer

  755
  than eight Scottish firms to use its own patents. So far as it lies in our power to direct research projects to Scotland, we are already doing so.
  Mr. Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the electrical engineering industry. This is one which has recently been in trouble, and only yesterday the secretary of the local A.E.U. asked me to help the Telegraph Condenser Company employees, where 600 people have just been given notice.
  Mr. Erroll: I was quoting electrical engineering to show how accurate our estimate have proved to be in practice; no more than that. I should have thought that the House would like to know that the estimates which my predecessor has made have proved to be reasonably accurate in the event. I wish to make no other point than that. If hon. Gentlemen would like it, we will continue to give the best estimates we can, but if they would rather we said nothing about jobs in the pipeline, we will stop the practice.
  Mr. Hoy: The right hon. Gentleman should know that we will be delighted to have all the information that we can get, but we should also like information on the lines that my hop. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) suggested—jobs going out the other way. As long as we get the net figures, that is what is important to us, we will be very grateful for them.
  Mr. Erroll: I was very interested, not only in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, but in the article he wrote for the Evening Citizen on Friday, 13th July. May I congratulate the right hon. Gentlemen on his ability to write, as well as to speak. [Interruption.] I mean to write as a journalist; I do not mean in any other way. I thought it was a very interesting article, and I thought the right hon. Member would have realised that I was praising his article. As a one-time amateur journalist myself, I can always tell when an article is good and when it makes its points well, and I thought that the phrase would be appreciated by hon. Members opposite. I was particularly interested not in the more tendentious features, which one would expect from a hard hitting
  756
  article, but in a paragraph in which the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "But these are bound to be ineffective unless you have a tough planning Government in London ruthlessly stopping new employers going where there is congestion and over-employment, and generously giving inducements to firms to go where jobs are needed."
  I want briefly to inform the House how thoroughly we are already carrying out that policy, but it is a policy not only in which we believe, but on which we act.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) referred to the necessity for what he called a tougher industrial certificate policy. We are already as tough, to use the colloquialism, as it is practicable to be. We are at the stage where some refusals result in no development taking place at all and when a firm would rather not expand than have to move part of its production, even with the wide range of Government inducements which are available. We may not like the attitude of certain firms in this matter, but we have to take life as we find it and the fact is that we are being as tough as it is practicable to be.
  I have personally studied all 31 of the industrial development certificates granted in London and the South-Eastern area in 1961 for schemes of 50,000 sq. ft. and over in order to see whether we had made any mistakes. I took that figure as that is the sort of size of expansion scheme which we can reckon as normally expected to be mobile. Of those 31 I found not one in which we could have managed to persuade the firm to move, because many of them were tied to the London area.
  I shall not go through the list, but I will give examples to give hon. Members an idea of the sort of schemes for which we gave I.D.C.s and to show that they are not mobile and not capable of being taken to Scotland. Four of them were brickworks, which must be sited near clay deposits and their market, which in this case was London. The total extra employment from all four of them was 120 and, in the event, three of the four certificates were not "cashed", or used, and only one, employing 40 people, was proceeded with.
  Then there was an industrial development certificate for a printing office for a London evening newspaper, which

  757
  could hardly have been moved to Scotland. Even there the extra jobs created were fewer than 300. Another printing and publishing extension of 80,000 sq. ft. was a reorganisation scheme involving no additional employment. A company manufacturing polish and cleaners in the London area applied for an extension of 125,000 sq. ft., but this was a reorganisation scheme of existing production and it created only 23 extra jobs. Another scheme concerned electrical appliances with an extension of 65,000 sq. ft., but it created only 48 additional jobs. A bakery serving London customers was centralising production and had a scheme of 80,000 sq. ft., which sounds a lot but which created no extra jobs.
  I am sure that hon. Members have felt, with me, on arriving at London Airport and travelling along the Great West Road to Central London and seeing all the factories, that some of them ought to go to Scotland. Feeling that myself, I considered all these applications to see whether any could have been moved to Scotland, but not one of them could. I have given this information to the House in some detail because I want to assure hon. Members that the policy which we are pursuing is tough and that any scheme which could be moved is moved.
  In the last two years, industrial development certificates for the whole of Great Britain have provided only 217,000 extra jobs for men and women and of those 26,000 were for Scotland and 191,000 for England and Wales. A great deal of the extra employment which arises comes from extensions inside existing premises which do not require additional building. It is only when a firm wishes to rebuild or build a substantial extension that it comes within our net.
  The big extensions and expansions, such as those which took place in the motor car industry in 1960, tend to be cyclical in character. Extensions or subsidiaries having been planned in 1960, there is then a period in which the extensions are digested, so to speak, and in which the firms are in no mood for any further extensions. This has occurred in a wide range of industry and at the moment such investment is running a little below the record
  758
  levels of the last two years, and therefore there are not so many expansion schemes coming forward at present which we could steer towards Scotland, or to that other important area, the North-East Coast, which is to be debated on Monday evening.
  Mr. Gaitskell: The right hon. Gentleman has given a depressing picture of the rate of industrial development, which does not surprise me. But will he now tell us what he proposes to do to reduce the rate of unemployment in Scotland and the rate of migration from Scotland?
  Mr. Erroll: Members opposite must decide whether they want to spend the short time at my disposal in interrupting me or hearing what I have to say. I asked for only twenty-five minutes because hon. Members had asked for under fifteen minutes each, and I thought that I should therefore keep my speech short as well.
  This is not only a matter of steering industry to Scotland. There is also the importance of the expanding Scottish firms. Those which are situated in development districts are entitled to, and do apply for, the full range of financial and other inducements available under the Local Employment Act, 1960.
  Some of these growths are very dramatic. I do not want to weary the House with a long catalogue, but some expansions of existing Scottish firms are most impressive. For instance, there is Burroughs Machines, Ltd., which employed 330 people in 1950 and now employs 3,600 in Strathleven and Cumbernauld. A. F. Stoddard, Ltd., had 1,300 employees in 1947 and now employs 2,000 people at Johnstone. Pringle of Scotland, Ltd., knitwear manufacturers, which employed 650 people in 1949, now employs 1,400 at Hawick. All these companies and many others are continuing to expand and to provide further employment. I am sorry that, in the short time left to me, I cannot deal with the question of knitwear raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson).
  Mr. Willis: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us now what he is going to do about more jobs?
  Mr. Erroll: I am coming to that. In view of the likely opportunities which are arising, and which continually arise, I have recently reviewed the organisation within the Board of Trade to ensure that it is as efficient as it can be. In addition to the staff at headquarters in London, each regional controller is in touch with industry all the time and has been asked to ensure that he learns as soon as possible of any firm or enterprise of any size which is likely to expand and which might become a project steerable to Scotland or to other development districts. We begin confidential discussions with every firm about its expansion plans as soon as it is ready to do so.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) referred to his experiences in the United States. He told me that he would be unable to be here for my reply, but I want to refer to what he said. Although some American firms in his experience may prefer the inducements of continental countries, the fact remains that we succeed in attracting far more investment from the United States than does the rest of Europe put together. We have an extremely efficient Board of Trade office in New York for the express purpose of keeping in contact with industrialists in the United States who may be thinking of setting up subsidiary plants in Britain, and particularly in Scotland. It may interest the House to know that our senior official there is himself a Scotsman and is very keen to see the industrial revival of Scotland.
  The Leader of the Opposition said we should take into account future colliery closures in bringing new jobs to Scotland. We do that already, particularly when deciding upon development districts. This is the first step in the process. We maintain the closest touch with the National Coal Board so that we know as far as possible what its plans for colliery closures are likely to be, and we take this into account in deciding what new development districts should be created or what districts should be taken off the lists, the need for additional employment being no longer necessary. We also take into account the possible closure of railway workshops or old shipyards and so on.
  760
  We have been advised by various hon. Members that inducements should be greater or should be fixed.
  Naturally, everybody likes to be certain from the outset what he will get, but —and we have plenty of proof of this— people also like the flexibility of our arrangements for assistance which can be adapted to suit each project and the way it develops. In practice, we give firms a pretty clear idea of what we can do for them, and in my experience, so long as they know the broad outline, they prefer the final offer when their own plans are more precise.
  This is part and parcel of the flexibility which we have introduced into our administration. We and B.O.T.A.C. try to fit the assistance to the particular needs of each case, having in mind where it is to be situated, the type of employment it will give, the financial background of the firm and all the other considerations. I have studied the suggestion made by the Toothill Committee, and I know that the Scottish Council has made certain representations to my right hon. Friend. I have undertaken to look at both those with him, but I believe that the variety and flexibility of the inducements which we can offer are powerfud aids towards steering new forms of industry to Scotland.
  As an example of that, the average cost of each job provided in Great Britain is about £900. But in Scotland the average is over £1,400 per job. Would Scotland really prefer that it should be a flat rate at the lower level, or would the House of Commons, which must have regard to public expenditure, prefer that the rate should be a flat £1,400 per job and see a greater expenditure of public money on this desirable object than is absolutely necessary? I am talking about money spent. Some of the money is lent above the line and all has to be met out of what the taxpayers provide in the current year. From the point of view of the taxpayer, it is money to be found this year. It may come back in the years to come, but it has to be found now and not in ten years.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith made great play with the Labour Party Pamphlet Signposts For The Sixties. He did not point out that in that document the Labour Party threatened to nationalise any firm in

  761
  receipt of State aid. Are these firms to be exempt, or are they to be nationalised if they receive State aid? This is no great inducement to industry.
  Mr. Hoy: Unlike the Minister, I am delighted to answer questions. In our document Signposts For The Sixties, we made it quite clear that we were willing to go into partnership even with private industry to exploit scientific and industrial research. We were prepared to be partners, but if private industry failed to come in, obviously it would be the responsibility of the Government to set up a State factory of their own.
  Mr. Erroll: Hon. Gentlemen opposite are always saying what they are going to do. In the 2¼ years during which the 1960 Act has been in force we have offered assistance amounting to £73 million to provide an extra 82,000 jobs throughout Britain. Of this, over £43 million, or 60 per cent., is to be spent in Scotland to provide 32,000 jobs Let
  us see how this compares with the period 1945–51. Throughout this period the offers made under comparable powers of B.O.T.A.C. and accepted throughout Britain amounted to £4·8 million, or £800,000 per annum. This compares with the current annual rate of over £18 million for Britain which the present Government are making available. Scotland alone is now being offered B.O.T.A.C. assistance at a rate fifteen times greater than the Labour Government thought fit to offer the whole country during their period of office.
  The Government are determined that Scotland shall have an assured place in the expanding economy of Britain. I therefore ask the House to support the Government's forward-looking and practical policy for Scotland.
  Question put, That "£7,078,200" stand part of the Resolution:—
  The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 176.

  Division No. 250.]

  AYES

  [9.30 p.m.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hiley, Joseph

  Allason, James

  Dance, James

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

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hill, Mrs. Evelyn (Wythenshawe)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

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

  Barber, Anthony

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Barlow, Sir John

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Barter, John

  Doughty, Charles

  Holland, Philip

  Batsford, Brian

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hollingworth, John

  Bell, Ronald

  du Cann, Edward

  Hopkins, Alan

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Duncan, Sir James

  Hornby, R. P.

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Eden, John

  Horneby-Smith, Rt Hon. Dame P.

  Biffen, John

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Bingham, R. M.

  Elliott,R.W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne,N.)

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Bishop, F. P.

  Emery, Peter

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Bossom, Clive

  Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Box, Donald

  Fell, Anthony

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Finlay, Graeme

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Fisher, Nigel

  James, David

  Brooman-White, R.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Jennings, J. C.

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Foster, John

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Fraser,Rt.Hon.Hugh(Stafford&Stone)

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Bryan, Paul

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Johnson, Eric Geoffrey

  Buck, Antony

  Freeth, Denzil

  Kerance, Cdr. J. S.

  Bullard, Denys

  Gardner, Edward

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Gilmour, Sir John

  Kirk, Peter

  Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Kitson, Timothy

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Goodhew, Victor

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Chataway, Christopher

  Green, Alan

  Leather, Sir Edwin

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Cole, Norman

  Gurden, Harold

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Collard, Richard

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Cooke, Robert

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Lindsay, Sir Martin

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hare, Rt. Hon. John

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Corfield, F. V.

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'field)

  Coulson, Michael

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Craddock, Sir Beresford

  Hastings, Stephen

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Critchley, Julian

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Cunningham, Knox

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  McLaren, Martin

  Curran, Charles

  Hendry, Forbes

  McLoughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Mclean, Neil (Inverness)

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Studholme, Sir Henry

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

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  McMaster, Stanley R.

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

  Tapsell, Peter

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Maddan, Martin

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Pym, Francis

  Thornton-Kemsley, sir Colin

  Marten, Neil

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Cordon

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Mawby, Ray

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R.J.

  Rees, Hugh

  Vane, W. M. F.

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

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Mills, Stratton

  Renton, Rt. Hon. David

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell

  Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Walder, David

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Walker, Peter

  Morgan, William

  Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)

  wall, Patrick

  Morrison, John

  Roots, William

  Webster, David

  Neave, Airey

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

  St. Clair, M.

  Whitelaw, William

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Sharples, Richard

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Shaw, M.

  Wise, A. R.

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Shepherd, William

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Peel, John

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

  woollam, John

  Percival, Ian

  Smithers, Peter

  Woreley, Marcus

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

  Pitman, Sir James

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Stodart. J. A.

  Mr. Chichester-Clark and

  Pott, Percivall

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Mr. Gordon Campbell.

  NOES

  Ainsley, William

  Galtskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Albu, Austen

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Gooch, E. G.

  McLeavy, Frank

  Awbery, Stan

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Gourlay, Harry

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Baird, John

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Grey, Charles

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

  Beaney, Alan

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Manuel Archie

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Mapp, Charles

  Bence, Cyril

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  Marsh, Richard

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Gunter, Ray

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Benson, Sir George

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Blackburn, F.

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Millan, Bruce

  Blyton, William

  Hannan, William

  Milne, Edward

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Harper, Joseph

  Monslow, Walter

  Bowden, Rt. Hn.H. W. (Leics. S.W.)

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Moody, A. S.

  Bowles, Frank

  Hayman, F. H.

  Morris, John

  Boyden, James

  Healey, Denis

  Moyle, Arthur

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegls)

  Mulley, Frederick

  Bardley, Tom

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Hill, J.(Midlothian)

  Oliver, G.H.

  Brewis, John

  Hilton, A. V.

  Oram, A. E.

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Holman, Percy

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Hooson, H. E.

  Oswald, Thomas

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Houghton, Douglas

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Hoy, James H.

  Parker, John

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Hughes, Emrys (S, Ayrshire)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Cliffe, Michael

  Hunter, A. E.

  Peart, Frederick

  Crosland, Anthony

  Hynd, H.(Accrington)

  Pentland, Norman

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Dalyell, Tam

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Darling, George

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Prentice, R. E.

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

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

  Rankin, John

  Deer, George

  Delargy, Hugh

  Jones, Elwyn (Burnley)

  Redhead, E. C.

  Dempsey, James

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Reid, William

  Diamond, John

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Driberg, Tom

  Kelley, Richard

  Rhodes, H.

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  King, Dr. Horace

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Lawson, George

  Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

  Evans, Albert

  Ledger, Ron

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

  Finch, Harold

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Ross, William

  Fitch, Alan

  Lipton, Marcus

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Fletcher, Eric

  Lubbock, Eric

  Short, Edward

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Forman, J. C.

  MacDermot, Niall

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mclnnes, James

  Skeffington, Arthur

  764

  765

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Taverns, D.

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Small, William

  Thompson, Or. Alan (Dunfermllne)

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

  Snow, Julian

  Thornton, Ernest

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Steele, Thomas

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Warbey, William

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Storehouse, John

  Whitlock, William

  Stones, William

  Wigg, George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Mr. Charles A. Howell and

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

  Willey, Frederick

  Mr. McCann.

  Swingler, Stephen

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  It being after half-past Nine o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply), to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Resolution under consideration.
  Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put and agreed to.
  Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Classes I to XI of the Civil Estimates, the Ministry of Defence Estimate, the Navy Estimates, the Army Estimates, the Air Estimates, and of Navy, Army and Air Services (Expenditure).

  SCOTLAND (INDUSTRY AND EMPLOYMENT)
    CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1962–3
      CLASS I

        GOVERNMENT AND EXCHEQUER
        Question,
        That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class I of the Civil Estimates,
        put and agreed to.

      CLASS II

        COMMONWEALTH AND FOREIGN
        Question,
        That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class II of the Civil Estimates,
        put and agreed to.

      CLASS III

        HOME AND JUSTICE
        Question,
        That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class III of the Civil Estimates,
        put and agreed to.

      CLASS IV

        INDUSTRY, TRADE AND TRANSPORT
        Question,
        That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class IV of the Civil Estimates,
        put and agreed to.

      CLASS V

        AGRICULTURE
        Question,
        That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class V of the Civil Estimates,
        put and agreed to.

      CLASS VI

        LOCAL GOVERNMENT, HOUSING AND SOCIAL SERVICES
        Question,
        That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VI of the Civil Estimates,
        put and agreed to.

      CLASS VII

        UNIVERSITIES AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
        Question,
        That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VII of the Civil Estimates,
        put and agreed to.

      CLASS VIII

        MUSEUMS, GALLERIES AND THE ARTS
        Question,
        That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VIII of the Civil Estimates,
        put and agreed to.

      CLASS IX

        PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND COMMON GOVERNMENT SERVICES
        Question,
        That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class IX of the Civil Estimates,
        put and agreed to.

      CLASS X

        SMALLER PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS
        Question,
        That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class X of the Civil Estimates,
        put and agreed to.

      CLASS XI

        MISCELLANEOUS
        Question,
        That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class XI of the Civil Estimates,
        put and agreed to.

    MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1962–63
    Question,
    That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Ministry of Defence Estimate,
    put and agreed to.

    NAVY ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1962–63
    Question,
    That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Navy Estimates,
    put and agreed to.

    ARMY ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1962–63
    Question,
    That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Army Estimates,
    put and agreed to.

    AIR ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1962–63
    Question,
    That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Air Estimates,
    put and agreed to.

    NAVY EXPENDITURE, 1960–61
    Question,
    That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution relating to Navy Expenditure, 1960–61,
    put and agreed to.

    ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1960–61
    Question,
    That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution relating to Army Expenditure, 1960–61,
    put and agreed to.

    AIR EXPENDITURE, 1960–61
    Question,
    That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution relating to Air Expenditure, 1960–61,
    put and agreed to.

    WAYS AND MEANS [18th July]
    Resolution reported,
    That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, the sum of £3,402,234,997 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
    Resolution agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Barber.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION)
    Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, and to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 136].
    EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
    Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

  SMALL FARMER SCHEME
  9.48 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): I beg to move,
  That the Small Farmer (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Scheme, 1962, a draft of which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.
  With your' permission, Mr. Speaker, I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if we dealt at the same time with the Small Farmers (Scotland) Scheme, as both cover the same ground.
  Mr. Speaker: That would be convenient.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The purpose of the Schemes is to implement the decision taken at the last annual price review to extend the Small Farmer Scheme to farm businesses with labour requirements of between 450 and 500 standard man-days and to effect several small amendments.
  As the House knows, eligible farms are those which satisfy two tests relating to their size. One is the acreage of the farm and the other concerns the standard labour requirements. It is necessary to have both these tests because acreage alone is no test of the size of the farmer's business. Standard labour requirements are the annual requirements of manual labour needed, on average, for the production of crops and livestock with an addition for essential farm maintenance and other necessary tasks. These requirements are expressed in terms of "standard man-days" per acre of crops or per head of livestock, which represents eight hours' manual work for an adult male worker under average conditions.
  At present eligible farm businesses must embrace not less than 20 acres of crops and grass. They must also have labour requirements of not more than 450 standard man-days on application and not less than 250 standard man-days on application or a potential of 275 on completion of a plan. Under the new Scheme the minimum and maximum acreage limits of 20 and 100 acres will remain unchanged, but the upper man-day limits will be raised from 450 to 500. It is estimated that this change will bring within the scope of the Schemes a fur-
  770
  ther 13,000 small farmers and with a reasonable response we would expect to pay in grant about £2½ million in the first full year of operation.
  The total additional amount spread over the life of the Schemes is expected to be about £10 million for the United Kingdom. This Statutory Instrument extends the Scheme for applications until the end of July, 1967, and will bring the total of eligible farmers up to 79,000, an increase of about 20 per cent. The House will be interested to hear something about the progress of the scheme so far. Although it is too early to make an overall judgment because it has not been running for very long, I can confidently say that the scheme has helped a great number of deserving small farmers.
  There has been an excellent response from farmers. By 31st May, 1962, some 41,000 farm business plans had been approved in the United Kingdom and it is estimated that when completed these plans will receive a total of over £29 million in grants and by 31st May £13 million of this had already been paid. The response to this Scheme has been good.
  Some 63 per cent. of the estimated number of eligible farms already have approved farm business plans. The great majority of them are proceeding satisfactorily and should be properly fulfilled. Some are exceeding our expectations and so far only about 6 per cent. of farm business plans have been cancelled. The main reasons for these cancellations have been changes in the occupancy of farms, ill health, retirement and death of the farmer. There have, of course, been a small number of cases where the farmer has not carried out his work properly or has lost interest, but these represent a very small minority. It can be taken that the scheme is achieving what it was designed to do, to increase the efficiency and profitability of a large number of small farm business and render them more prosperous in conditions of increased and increasing competition.
  It may be said that the Scheme will result in increased production of milk, livestock and livestock products at a time when these are not really wanted, but this increase is likely to be relatively small compared with total production in

  771
  this country. The really important point is that the Scheme helps to reduce unit cost production and so makes the small farmer more efficient and competitive. When we look at these farms we are not trying to impose national policy for production but to help the farmer to work out a business plan which will establish the farm on a profitable basis.
  The House will no doubt wish to know why we have decided to extend the Scheme by raising the standard man-day limits. My right hon. Friend fell that there was a strong case for this. When the existing Scheme started we were not able to bring in everyone we wanted because there was a limit to the number of cases which could be handled by the N.A.A.S. and our technical officers. We are now in a position to include this further group who have already shown a capacity to work their farms by the fact that they have been over the 450 man-day limit and we are now bringing them into the Scheme.
  Hon. Members may wonder why we have decided to introduce a new Scheme to make an apparently simple alteration to the man-day limit. We have taken the opportunity of doing this because the existing Scheme can be extended only by Statutory Instrument. A change of this kind cannot be made by an ordinary administrative ruling.
  As we had to proceed by Statutory Instrument, we were faced with three possible ways of making the change. We could have amended the present Scheme; we could have introduced a separate Scheme to run parallel with the existing one now in force; or we could have replaced the existing Scheme by a new Scheme to cover those eligible under the old Scheme and those who may wish to become eligible under the new Scheme.
  We did not adopt the first method of doing this because the existing Scheme ends on 18th February, 1964, and we thought that it would be unfair to farmers on holdings between 450 and 500 standard man-days to give them only 18 months in which to prepare and submit their plans, whereas others who had already benefited had five years to prepare their plans.
  772
  The second course would have involved running two Schemes side by side and it might have caused confusion among farmers to know under which Scheme to apply, and if they applied for the wrong one under the 18 months period they might have been debarred by Statute.
  The third course, free from all these objections, was the one we decided to adopt. The only important difference between this Scheme and the existing Scheme is that farms on which there is an uncompleted improvement Scheme under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts, 1946 to 1956, will no longer be excluded from assistance under the Small Farmer Scheme. As a result, some further 250 small farmers will now become eligible.
  We originally excluded these people because there seemed to be a danger that we might pay double grant on items included in both a farm business plan and a livestock rearing improvement scheme. However, we are now satisfied that we can prevent double grants by administrative moans without this sweeping prohibition and we feel that the ban should be lifted now so that these people will be able to benefit if they so wish. Except for the changes which I have mentioned and a few minor consequential alterations, the Scheme before the House now is in all respects the same as the existing Scheme.
  The Schemes then, the one for England and Wales and Northern Ireland and the other for Scotland, will be the second under the Agriculture (Small Farmers) Act, 1959. We propose that they should come into operation on 1st August. The last date for approving farm business plans under the existing Schemes will be 31st July this year. All approvals after that date will be under the new Schemes. This does not mean that we are revoking the existing plans since payments on them will continue for about 5 years, only that the old Schemes will toe closed so far as new applicants are concerned.
  Finally, I should like to repeat that in our view the Small Farmer Schemes are achieving their objects. We think that it is desirable that we should now extend their benefits to a class of farmer who had hitherto been excluded from getting this benefit because of the rather

  773
  higher level of stocking and cropping which he has had on his farm owing to his own efforts and industry. These people will be now included in the new Schemes. I hope, therefore, that the House will approve the two new Schemes.
  10.0 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Peart: I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on bis appointment. I am sorry that I missed has maiden speech at the Dispatch Box on the Adjournment the other night, but this is really his baptism in a debate which, though not a major debate, is an important one affecting the small farmer. I wish him luck in his new position. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Ever since I have been watching agriculture, not only from the Front Bench but as a back bencher, I have known three Parliamentary Secretaries, the right hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent), the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) and the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane). The Government have been extremely fortunate in the quality and calibre of their Parliamentary Secretaries. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who is a young man in the House of Commons, will live up to that reputation, and I wish him success in what I regard as the very important job of looking after farming interests and defending agriculture.
  We do not oppose this extension of the Small Farmer Scheme. We welcome it. The Explanatory Note at the back of the Statutory Instrument gives in detail a fair description of its purpose. It is proposed to extend the upper limit of eligibility making it 500 standard man-days instead of 450. Also, approval of a plan is no longer prohibited where a livestock rearing land improvement scheme is being carried out. This is sensible, and we accept it.
  Unfortunately, the acreage limit is to remain the same, still 20 to 100 acres. I understand that this was the subject of criticism, not in any negative sense, by the farmers' unions concerned as far back as 1960 when there were discussions on the Price Review. I still feel that, in spite of what I gather is the Government's view, there could have been an extension by bringing down the lower acreage limit from 20 to, say, 15
  774
  acres, and I hope that whoever is to reply will offer an explanation.
  The farm business grant remains the same at £6 per acre on the whole farm, excluding rough grazing, and the maximum is to be £360. Also, the field husbandry grants are to be the same for the various operations, the limit still being £1,000. We accept this and, broadly, we agree with the details, but, as I say, I wish that there had been a lowering of the acreage limit in order to bring more farmers within the benefit of the Scheme. It is no secret that this matter was raised again in discussions this year, and I still wonder why the limit has not been lowered to 15 acres.
  The Parliamentary Secretary said that the acreage limits remained the same because the National Agricultural Advisory Service would be too occupied, that the officers would have quite a lot of work to do and that it would be too much for them if we lowered the limit. I am informed that there has been a slowing down in the number of applications during the past year and that the numbers involved in a reduction of the lower acreage limit could be catered for. However, there may be a reason for what the Government have done, and I look forward to hearing that explanation.
  The raising of the maximum labour requirement from 450 to 500 standard man-days and the removal of the ban on farms where livestock rearing land improvement schemes are being carried out are, I think, acceptable and, indeed, this advice may have been the advice given to the Government by those concerned. The Minister gave some rather pleasing figures. I was informed that in 1961—I am open to correction—37,500 farm business schemes had been approved and a further 19,000 were under consideration. I understand that 22,000 plans were accepted or approved under the supplementary Scheme.
  I was not sure about the figure given by the Parliamentary Secretary. How many people do the Government expect to take advantage of the Scheme in this five-year period? Many of my hon. Friends would like to know the amount of money which will be made available. I should like to know how much the Government estimate will be given to

  775
  the small farmers, not only in respect of the business scheme, but also in respect of the production side, the husbandry grants given under Schedule 1.
  I am not harping about this. I believe that this will be money well spent, and I am anxious to help the small farmers. I am sure that most hon. Members on both sides of the House are anxious to do that. I reject the view that the small farmer should be deliberately squeezed out because of economic and financial policy. I reject the concept unfortunately held by many people in the agricultural world that the small fanner has no place in our economic life. I say this to many hon. Members on both sides who, I know, have interests in farming but who may not in certain circumstances be favourably disposed to the small farmers.
  I shall not repeat the many figures which I have here, but obviously the pattern of our economy, certainly that in England and Wales, is a small farmer economy. The big farmers are important, but they can look after themselves. In the end, it is the small farmer who produces and who in many areas looks after the land and countryside and plays an important part in our economy, often using the labour of his wife and other members of his family.
  I would reject any policy on the part of any Government—I say this not merely about a Conservative Government but about any Government—seeking deliberately to squeeze out the small farmer. It may be that because of economic events certain small farmers find it necessary to combine or cooperate, but I believe that they have a major contribution to make to our life, not only in the economic sense, but, if I may use a hackneyed term, for sociological reasons. I say that realising that there are many small farmers in my constituency in the rural areas of Cumberland.
  I am anxious for this Scheme to succeed. I accept that it is a constructive effort to help many small men who would in normal economic circumstances be squeezed out of business. Any attempt by any Government deliberately to squeeze the small farmer out of business would be resented not only by me
  776
  but, I hope, by hon. Members on both sides interested in agriculture.
  What are the stark facts? Here, no doubt, I shall indulge in controversy. Many small farmers are having a difficult time. Why? The Parliamentary Secretary must know the answer to that Indeed, many of his hon Friends can tell him the answer. It is as a result of Government agricultural policy.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we are concerned with these two Schemes and not with general agricultural policy.
  Mr. Peart: I accept that we must not get involved in too general a debate. It is important, however, that we put the Scheme in perspective. After all, the purpose of it is to help the small farmers who are in difficulties. It must, therefore, be relevant to my argument to point out the difficulties of the small farmers, otherwise we shall debate the Scheme in a vacuum. We must debate its relation to the realities of our agricultural system.
  The simple fact is that small farmers are facing difficulties because of Government policy. It may well be that because they know this, the Government have to introduce this Small Farmer Scheme.
  Mr. Robert Mathew Mr. Robert Mathew (Honiton) rose—
  Mr. Peart: I am delighted to give way to a European.
  Mr. Mathew: The whole tenure of what the hon. Member has been saying is that it is Government action in this country and in other countries that causes difficulties for small farmers. That is quite contrary to the proposal that is now before the House. It is the economic facts of life that made it difficult for small farmers to make a living throughout the whole—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am afraid that that interruption would tempt the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), who has the Floor, to go outside the proper scope of the debate.
  Mr. Peart: It would tempt me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because economic events are often determined by political decisions in the House of Commons.

  777
  Political decisions by the Government have created in agriculture difficulties for the small farmer. Therefore, it is necessary to have a Scheme of this kind.
  I would expect the support of the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Mathew), because he represents a rural constituency, possibly similar to mine, with small fanners, who undoubtedly will benefit by a scheme of this kind. By enabling State aid to be given, it will help the farmer and buttress him against the economic forces which the hon. Member has mentioned. I would sympathise with the hon. Member had he been a Liberal laissez-faire man, as, I suspect, in other spheres he is, but he should welcome State intervention with a Small Farmer Scheme to protect the small farmer who faces difficulties.
  I am anxious that the Scheme shall succeed. The reasons for it are that, over a period of 10 years, there has been a decline in the net farm incomes of farmers in terms of purchasing power. The small farmer therefore welcomes the Scheme. The various farm organisations, who are anxious to help it in every way, recognise that the State must intervene.
  I am merely putting a political argument which I consider to be valid. This is an agricultural debate on the position of the small farmer. The tragedy is that we have to introduce a Scheme of this kind because economic events have forced the small farmer into serious difficulty. Government policy has done this. At the same time, we accept that the purpose of any agricultural Scheme which we are discussing tonight must be to increase the efficiency of agriculture.
  When we discuss the place of the small farmer in a Scheme of this kind in our economy, it is accepted that the cost factors of farm production have risen faster than the prices of most farm commodities. This has created a special problem for the small farmer. That is why it is essential that we should provide a special Scheme to protect him from the economic circumstances mentioned by the hon. Member for Honiton.
  There has been what we term a cost-price squeeze. The only way to challenge it is by a continued reduction in unit costs. This is difficult for a small
  778
  farmer. The remedy is to increase output relative to fixed costs. That is partly why we need a Scheme of this kind and why we on the Opposition side welcome what has been said by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary.
  Every hon. Member, from whichever part of the country he comes, knows that the dilemma is that for the small farmer any increase in livestock production from a small dairy or mixed farm in itself creates problems. Productivity may be increased on larger farms in the selfsame products. Therefore, the competitive position of the small farmer vis-à-vis the large farmer is diminished. That is why we have to give special aid.
  I should expect the wholehearted support of every hon. Member opposite to help the small farmer in a situation in which increasingly 'there is competition as against the larger farmer in livestock production, to give merely one example, and in which the small farmer may face extreme difficulties and may in the end go out of farming.
  These are facts and they show the need for a Scheme like this. I have some figures to show why we need it. In the south-eastern counties the small farmer needs protection of this kind because other factors are involved. There are amenity demands in respect of farms and farm lands. Rents have been forced up, and costs have been increased—quite unjustifiably in comparison with the agricultural value of 'the land. In the end it is the small farmer who suffers.
  I would point also to the suburban milk production by the small farmers in the industrial Pennines. They axe on high-cost holdings. They have been fortunate in the past to be near cities. But that advantage has now been taken away from them. With the development of modern communications and marketing methods, their relative competitive position as against the large farmer does not exist. Take also the upland farmers in the livestock rearing regions of England and Wales. They are small farmers relying mainly on store sheep and cattle. They do not get directly the benefit of guaranteed prices. They are susceptible to heavy market fluctuations.
  I have with me the comments of a very distinguished person connected with the Department of Agriculture at the

  779
  University College of Wales, Aberystwyth. It is an economic report by D. H. Evans on farming incomes in Wales, 1960–61, giving the labour earnings for farms in Wales of the type about which I am speaking. It describes how many of the small farmers are facing great difficulties. My hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite could give example after example of how some of our small farmers are having an extremely difficult time.
  It is no good the Government being complacent. The fact is that over a period of 10 years, through Government policy, the small farmer has come to face increasing difficulties. It is no good the hon. Member for Honiton saying that that is not so. It is not because of the course of economic events; it is due to Government policy over a long period.
  I have here some newspaper references to the Price Review. I have, in particular the Farmers' Guardian, a good Northern farming paper. It says:
  "Imposed review hits at milk, sheep, eggs. Fertiliser cut another blow to small man."
  A week later the same newspaper said:
  "Reaction to price reductions is bitter. Small farms' plight rouses N-W concern."
  I speak only for the North-West, where the small farmer is in difficulties. That is why I am anxious to support some protective effort on the part of the Government to relieve the situation. I and my hon. Friends welcome the Small Farmer Scheme, but the tragedy is that at the same time as the Government introduce the scheme they impose a Price Review on the industry which hurts the small farmer.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but that is going beyond the Scheme which we are now debating.
  Mr. Peart: I accept, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it would be wrong of me to engage in a Price Review debate. I am arguing that this is the tragedy of the Scheme. The danger is that it could be frustrated because of the Government's economic policy in relation to agriculture. I should have thought that that was reasonable argument. I will not develop it at length, but will mention it only in passing. The Price Review is only one of the factors. I will
  780
  not go into details on the whole problem of imports and of the Common Market—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is going further than he is entitled to do, and I am sure that he appreciates that.
  Mr. Peart: I know that you are always very courteous, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I would not wish to be out of order.
  I would only argue—and I was coming to the end of my argument—that the Common Market wild affect the small farmer, and he is very worried. I am anxious that this Scheme should succeed. I am also anxious that the small farmer should be helped by any co-operative measure of the Government. These are the things which are worrying the small farmer, and it is no good this House being fobbed off by any Scheme of this kind unless it is related to a broad policy which will help the small farmer. It is all very weld saying to the small farmer, "Here is a Small Farmer Scheme", but it must be backed up by a policy which will make certain that the small farmer is not squeezed out because of political or economic decisions taken by the Government.
  10.22 p.m.
  Sir James Duncan: There is a note on the Order Paper dealing with the Second Report from the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, but the Minister this evening said nothing about it. On reading it now, I find that the explanation by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food does not seem to make it any clearer. I think that before we part with this Scheme we ought to have some explanation from the Government as to what the Ministry of Agriculture's long Explanatory Note really means.
  At the end of the Scheme applying to England and Wales, the Explanatory Note states that the acreage limit is 20 to 100 acres; but, in the Ministry of Agriculture's explanation to the Statutory Instrument Committee, it is stated:
  "(f) it follows that the 100 acre limit imposed by the scheme on the day on which a farm business plan is submitted to the Minister for approval is additional to, and not in substitution for, the 150 acre limit imposed by the Act,"
  I do not know what that means—whether it is to be 250 acres in all or not. I

  781
  do not think it means that, but that is the way it reads, and I think that somebody ought to answer before we part with the Scheme.
  This sort of slipshod method of producing Schemes of this type is the reason for the original setting up of the Statutory Instruments Committee. The House ought to pay more attention to the Reports of this Committee when it takes the trouble to submit them, and if hon. Members look at the Committee's Reports, they will see the enormous amount of work which the Committee has to do in scrutinising each Statutory Instrument submitted to it. Therefore, when we get a Report like this mentioned on the Order Paper of the House, I think we ought to have some explanation of the Ministerial statement.
  The other thing I want to do is to ask how many farms have benefited from the Scheme in Scotland. The Scheme never had a greater appeal in Scotland than in England, but some farms have benefited. There are not very many farms of this category in my constituency, but there are a few. Before we part with the Scottish Scheme, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland might say something about progress in Scotland and future prospects.
  10.25 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Davies: As one who served several years on the Statutory Instruments Committee, I am convinced that it is the duty of the House to take note of memoranda which comes to it from the Committee, and I am grateful that the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) brought to the notice of the House this serious Report from the Committee.
  I do not want to reiterate what has been said, but I must say that I, too, am rather puzzled by the first paragraph of the appendix as to whether this Scheme applies to 100 acres and thereafter to another 150 acres, which makes it 250 acres, or whether it applies to 100 acres or 150 acres. On page 3 of the Statutory Instrument Committee's Report, it is explained by the Ministry of Agriculture that any doubt about the matter can be resolved by Section 31 of the Interpretation Act. 1889, which defines a small farm business.
  782
  Here we are in the mid-twentieth century being told by the Government that a small farm business can be defined by an Act of 1889. No wonder the captain, having driven his ship on the rocks, is executing the crew. This is a kind of political atavism. Without developing the point further, or making cheap remarks about it, I must emphasise that this is a serious point and that the House deserves a proper explanation of this Scheme in view of the fact that the Statutory Instruments Committee thought it serious enough to draw the attention of the House to this Order. We had the Annual Price Review in February and the British public should have had an agricultural debate.
  I welcome this Scheme as a Member for a constituency which is very large and stretches from the uplands of the Leek area to the edge of the Pennines, and I am glad that it is now to apply to some of the higher levels of hill-farming territory. I am glad that the Government can find a formula by means of which there will be no cheating and that this plan will not overlap with others. But there should have been a little vision. A party without vision withers, and the Conservative Party has nearly withered away.
  We are told about all kinds of grants in the First Schedule. But why could not the Government have made additional grants for bringing water to some of these districts?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We are restricted to discussing what is in the Order. The hon. Member cannot make suggestions of different provisions.
  Mr. Davies: Then I put myself in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The importance to our economy of the small farmer has been made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart). It would be a little unfair to charge the Joint Parliamentary Secretary—whom we congratulate—with saying that there is no interest in the situation of the small farmer, but I ask the Government in future to consider the question of initial acreage.
  I wish the Scheme had been applied to the 15-acre farms. Although its name sounds like the national emblem of Wales, my constituency is English, and in Leek and its environs are 3,000 farms,

  783
  and nearly 1,500 of them are of 20 acres or less, and 1,500 of them practically will not benefit from the Scheme.
  I hope the Government will look again at the Small Farmer Scheme in view of the Common Market. It would be out of order to make this a general debate, although I am tempted to try to do so and I have masses of data and information, but if I were to try to give it now I should be ruled out of order. It would be most unwise of me to arouse your ire, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and so, despite the sad condition in which the Government are at the moment, and the fact that the captain of the ship has gone berserk, I congratulate the remnants of the Government on having introduced—[Interruption.] I am saying it, and I stand by
  784
  what I say. I shall say worse than that this weekend when I get out into the country. I wish honestly and squarely to say that I am sure the small farmers will appreciate this, but will the Government see that publicity is given to it in the hill-farming areas, to make them fully aware of the fact that now they can come within the ambit of the Scheme? I think that at this juncture it would be wise of me to sit down, because if I go on speaking I may be out of order.
  Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Does the hon. Member, of his charity, feel inclined to welcome this Scheme on behalf of the Liberal Party as well, since none of that party is here?
  Mr. Davies: I am no Liberal. Fancy talking to me, a Left-wing Socialist, about Liberals.
  10.32 p.m.
  Mr. Percy Browne: Perhaps I can best follow the other hon. Members and start my speech by joining with the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) in congratulating my hon. Friend on his appointment as Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I do so particularly warmly because he is my neighbour and in the past has attacked the Government for their agricultural policy as much as I have. He has strength of character and courage to follow his own line and not merely that which is offered to him.
  Secondly, I would draw attention to the fact that there are no Members of the Liberal Party here. I am particularly sorry since I joined with them in signing their Motion calling for a debate on the Price Review.
  Mr. Peart: They are not interested in agriculture.
  Mr. Browne: Quite right. They are not.
  In 1958, when in what I thought was a rather hurried and slipshod way the Government introduced the Small Farmer Scheme, I thought it was, despite certain defects, a good Scheme for two reasons. First, because here there was a real attempt to protect the small farmers against the economic facts of life and the economic pressure of imports into this country, whether it was a natural pressure or brought on by the Government; and also because—as the hon. Member for Workington has hoard me say before, in the debate on a Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken)—I believe that in the small farms in the countryside we have something which is precious and which we want to preserve.
  I have certain criticisms I should like to make of this Scheme, having made those general remarks, and I should like to put a possible alternative to my hon. Friend. The first criticism is that it is rigid in fixing the acreage—20 to 100 acres. I said in 1958, and I repeat now, that it has always seemed to me that to a large extent the profitability of a hold-
  786
  ing depends on the type of land being farmed, and not on the actual size of the farm. Therefore, I regret that in altering this Scheme, particularly after reading, as I know my hon. Friend has, the report on the scale of fanning enterprises by Professor Zuckerman and others, there has been no increase in the acreage, up to 150. If anybody takes the trouble to read that report, he will find that within these acreage limits of 20 to 150 the average net income over the past three years was about £615 per farm, which does not allow very much for the farmer's labour and so on.
  I welcome the increase in man-days, because up to now the Scheme has often prevented the competent fanner from getting help. It might be asked why he should get help, because the object is to help the farmer who is not efficient, but I think that there is a difference between competence and efficiency. The competent farmer who may not have the right acreage of land and is therefore not efficient is the man that we want to help, and in this acreage group of 20 to 100 acres we often find a competent fanner who is just over the man-day limit.
  The Scheme has helped a large number of younger men to find a place on the farming ladder, and for this reason it is to be particularly welcomed. It is to be broadly welcomed because it is keeping our social structure. We are dealing with a large sum of money—£2½ million in one year, and my hon. Friend said that £10 million would probably be used in this Scheme, with 13,000 farms eligible for help. Is it right to spend this sum of money in continuing to keep these holdings divided? Would not it be better, whilst enabling individual farmers to work on their own farms, to encourage them to get together to cushion themselves against the economic circumstances of today? Last year— and I hope that this is in order—my right hon. Friend introduced a very worth -while grant. This was the machinery syndicate grant. It was a great help to small farmers who are included in this Scheme that we are discussing. I had hoped that this year my right hon. Friend would continue this process, and I believe that in the long term—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he is getting outwith the Scheme that we are debating.
  Mr. Browne: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. This is a result of the failure of the Government or the Opposition to find time to debate the Annual Price Review. Perhaps I might finish my sentence, otherwise it will not make sense. Would not this money be better employed if it were used to increase co-operation between farmers?
  We welcome the Scheme and hope that as many farmers as possible will benefit from it. I know from many farmers in my constituency, and as a farmer myself, what wonderful work the N.A.A.S. has done in administering the Small Farmer Scheme which was dropped on its plate at short notice. It was not really geared to it, but it did wonderful work in enabling more than 50,000 farmers to take part in it, and it now has to start with another group. I am sure that it will do it well, and that we wish it well. Finally, I am sure that we wish my hon. Friend well in his new job.
  10.40 p.m.
  Mr. John Morris: I am delighted to take part in this debate, as one who had a small part in forming the union in Wales, which looks after the interests of small farmers. I regret that we have not had a debate on the Price Review. I join in the criticism of the Members of the Liberal Party, who are conspicuous by their absence, although they derived tremendous publicity for the fact that they put down a Motion criticising both the Government and the Opposition for failing to arrange to have a debate on such an important subject as agriculture. Nevertheless, having regard to the fact that every county branch of the N.F.U. in Wales passed a vote of no confidence in the policy of the Minister of Agriculture, a debate on the Price Review would have been invaluable.
  Small farmers are getting fewer in number every year, and some reconstruction of the organisation is inevitable—but what will this Scheme achieve? Will it stave off the imminent collapse of a number of small fanners in the United Kingdom, and in Wales in particular? There are 3,500 fewer farms in Wales than there were in 1947, and most of the losses have been small farms.
  788
  This Scheme applies only to those small farmers who have what are called viable farms; it does not help the smallest farms, of under 20 acres. I do not share the anxiety of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) about extending this Scheme to a lower limit, although I will not go into that aspect of the matter now. I regard the basic problem as being the not-so-small farm on poor land. That is probably a far more difficult problem to tackle. I would rather have raised the limit, because the criterion of acreage—20–100—is not a very good one.
  Mr. Peart: I hope that I have not been misunderstood about the lower limit. I agree with my hon. Friend about that.
  Mr. Morris: I thank my hon. Friend for that assurance. My anxiety is about the upper and not the lower limit. I know farms which are unable to benefit from the Scheme because, although they are within the acreage limits, they are good farms and produce a considerable quantity of food. They do not need the Scheme. But there are marginal farms of slightly over 100 acres—up to 150 acres—which could benefit from this sort of Scheme.
  I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Workington say that he rejected completely the suggestion that the small farmer should be squeezed out. I am glad that that is the official policy of my party, and that it has been reiterated tonight. Statements to the contrary were made in the debate in another place on 13th February, by some whom we know very well. I am glad that this statement has been made tonight and that hon. Members on this side of the House are anxious to do everything possible to preserve the small farmer.
  But what is the real state of the small farmer today? He is tied to the milk cheque, and in view of the Minister's statement today that the object of the Scheme was to provide a better living for the small fanner, I wonder whether, even though there might be a marginal increase in some products—an increase which is undesirable in view of the state of the agricultural economy—the Scheme will really succeed in providing that better living.

  789
  We must remember that one of his main products is milk, and that the basic return to the small farmer is 2½d. a gallon less than it was in 1955. All the experts state that the profitability of milk has fallen from 11d. a gallon to 7d. a gallon for the average farm, and for the farm with higher costs the loss must be greater. In view of the fact that milk production has risen by 23 per cent. in in the last few years and that the profitability has fallen, we are entitled to ask where the small farmer stands in relation to this Scheme.
  Obviously there are some small farms which are within the acreage limits of 20 to 100 acres and within the man-days limitation. But the farmers have not been able to qualify because their farms are not viable. Perhaps we might be told how many farms have been refused a grant under those circumstances. There are small farms in Wales which do not produce an income for the fanner equivalent to the wages of a farm worker and for that reason do not qualify for a grant under this Scheme. If we could be given figures regarding such farms we should be able to appreciate the difficulties experienced by a substantial section of the farming community.
  I will not weary the House with figures about the profitability of small farms, but figures which have been given from time to time indicate that small farmers are having a difficult time. In answer to a Question from an hon. Member opposite, it was stated that according to a survey the average income of a marginal farm was £591 and for a farm of less than 50 acres it was £584. Those are very low figures. These incomes must cover the labour of the farmer and his wife and the provision of capital, so the net incomes of many small farmers must be very low.
  Tribute has been paid to the officers of the National Agricultural Advisory Service who had to shoulder a considerable burden without much warning when the Scheme was instituted. A great deal of the time of the officers has been taken up with preparing plans for its operation, and one wonders how much time these officers are able to devote to their original functions. It was suggested in the Caine Report that there should be a 25 per cent. increase in the number of these officers, and I should like to know
  790
  whether the Minister is satisfied that there are sufficient officers to perform the many duties which they are called on to fulfill.
  10.47 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel R. G. Grosvenor: I appreciate that the scope of this debate is narrow and small; I will therefore endeavour to remain within the limit of narrow and discuss small. As the representative of a Northern Ireland constituency where there are a great many small farmers, I welcome the Scheme. One welcomes any scheme which will help the small farmer. He is the backbone of our country.
  There will always be an argument about the limits of a farm, whether it be 19½ acres or 100¼ acres. Such debates have been going on for hundreds of years. We cannot be satisfied by limits, but it is necessary to accept an arbitrary judgment, and the acre is the measure accepted in this country. I do not think that we need spend much time arguing about a rod, pole or perch. If a farmer is short of a certain small area of ground, it is always possible for him to acquire a small portion in order to make his holding up to the right limit to qualify under the Scheme. That has been my experience.
  The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) repeated several times that farmers are facing difficulties. I cannot remember how many times the hon. Gentleman repeated that. Being a farmer, I am always facing difficulties, and many hon. Members are probably doing the same. It is curious that although farmers are always facing difficulties they seem to thrive on them. They thrive to the extent that a difficulty is a challenge which a farmer is always prepared to accept, a challenge not only from the Government of the day but from the elements. Farmers, being very virile and powerful people, are prepared to accept challenges. They survive them. That is a fair answer to the hon. Gentleman's remark.
  Mr. Peart: Surely the hon. and gallant Member accepts that if events go too far in the sense of a bad economic difficulty, as they did at one period in British history, farmers become bankrupt. There is a grave danger that many small

  791
  farmers, facing precisely these difficulties, will do that again. We want to avoid that.
  Lieut.-Colonel Grosvenor: I agree entirely. Nobody wants anyone to go bankrupt. I was saying that farmers have faced difficulties in the past. They are a strong and virile race and they will face difficulties in the future in the same way as they are facing difficulties today. No one suggests that we want to go through a period such as that we went through in the 1920s when farmers were down about as low as any other member of the community. I hope that that situation will not arise either today or in the future.
  I have some questions for my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, whose very well delivered speech I was delighted to hear. He referred to the 1946 and 1956 Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts. This matter is of considerable importance to my country, and I think to everybody else. The area of farming land is diminishing all the time and the more what used to be called marginal land but which we are not allowed to call that any more is used the better. I refer to the land running up the hill. Can my hon. Friend give us any information about that? How long are these arrangements likely to last? Are they popular in the Ministry? It applies particularly to my country because we have a great deal of what I should still like to call marginal land which could be benefited enormously by these schemes and would be very much more productive than they are today. If my hon. Friend could give me any information on that—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon and gallant Member will not ask for too much information on that, because it would be difficult to give it without the Minister getting out of order.
  Lieut.-Colonel Grosvenor: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I apologise for mentioning that. I should not have done so if my hon. Friend had not mentioned it. He referred to these two Acts specifically. I had hoped that we might have some information on the point.
  792
  Much has been said in favour of the small farmer. I hope that a great deal more will be said in his favour. Northern Ireland relies on small farmers. Theirs is our biggest industry and we do everything we can to support them.
  10.55 p.m.
  Mr. John Mackie: I, too, wish the Joint Parliamentary Secretary well in his new job. In doing so, I pay tribute to his predecessor, who was always one of the most courteous and helpful of people on the Front Bench opposite with whom I have had anything to do.
  As you have noticed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is most difficult to keep in order in this debate. I have never taken part in one in which it was more difficult to keep in order. Perhaps, you will be as lenient with me as with others. Before going further, I should like to put in a word for the poor Liberals. We must face the facts.
  Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend should remember that in the rural areas the Liberal Party has always declared that it defends the small farmer. That is not true. Tonight, for the first time this Session, we are debating a major scheme for assisting the small fanner and the Liberals are conspicuous by their absence.
  Mr. Mackie: I endorse the point made by my hon. Friend. I am always classified as a large farmer. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) might perhaps classify me as among the company of those on both sides of the House—although I do not want to put words in his mouth—who would like to do away with the small farmer and not help him to as much as my hon. Friend would like to do. Nothing is further from the truth. I want to help the small farmer in the only way in which I think he can be helped—that is to make him big. Unless we face that we shall go on with this type of palliative of small farmer schemes which will get us into difficulties.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said the other day that if we joined the Common Market, and implied that even if we did not, there would be a considerable reduction in help given to farming in the way of subsidies.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member is aware of the pitfalls which await him if he goes further in that direction.
  Mr. Mackie: I explained that there were difficulties, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall do my best to keep in order. I am sorry to get out of order, but you must appreciate that it is difficult to develop one's argument unless one can go astray a little in this way.
  It is a fact which we must face some day that the small farmer's income must go down because of this situation we are faced with for the future. That is why I feel that some other form of help than the one suggested in these Schemes is needed. I went to west Derbyshire to help in the recent by-election and interviewed a tremendous number of small farmers to find what they were doing. I was surprised to find how few of them had taken advantage of this Scheme. It was quite extraordinary. I made inquiries and, like the hon. and gallant Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Lieut.-Colonel Grosvenor), I found it was because they were just outside the 100 acre limit or debarred by some other small detail which had to be taken into account. I found that they certainly needed help.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) said, their main income is from milk, sheep and eggs, items which have been cut. In that district any amount of farmers are retiring and their land is being taken over by other farms, but this is being done in a disordered fashion. One man had some bits of land six miles away from his farm. That kind of fragmentation is ridiculous. There should be something in the scheme to help those farmers.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that £13 million had been or will be spent this year. Through the reduction of income which we shall suffer— and I think there is nothing surer— even with these Schemes many of those farms will become non-viable. My plea—I hope that this will not be out of order, though it is not in the Scheme— is that there should be a plan for the amalgamation of small farms under some such Scheme as this, not under the Farm Improvement Scheme. As I say, that is the proper way to help small
  794
  farmers. This is what is being done in the Common Market countries; farms are being made bigger, and work is being found for farmers.
  Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Is it not a fact that in the Common Market countries the average farm is very much smaller than ours?
  Mr. Mackie: I could not agree more, but that does not determine the ideal size for us. We have about 80,000 farms of under 20 acres which are receiving no help at all. We should bring them into the picture. If we are to compete with the Common Market countries, we shall undoubtedly have to help small farmers, but help them in the way I suggest, by making their farms bigger through amalgamations, doing it in an orderly way and not as my hon. Friend the Member for Workingtion puts it, squeezing them out. But this is what is happening. Anyone who goes about the country sees that there is an enormous number of small farmers who are being squeezed out already, and not in an orderly way. There should be a scheme for the amalgamation of farms to give the farmers decent conditions and the sort of living which we all want them to have.
  11.2 p.m.
  Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: I know that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has already been christened at the Dispatch Box, but I add my congratulations to him now, as this is the first occasion on which I have had the opportunity to do so. I hope that he will be very happy in the responsibilities which have now fallen to him.
  The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr Mackie) has spoken about the need to make the small farm a viable unit. This is what the Scheme is intended to do. I hope that what I have to say will be in order, having regard to paragraph 5 of the Scheme which provides that a small farmer must submit to the Minister for approval a farm business plan in respect of the business and that the Minister, after approving the plan, may accept him within the Scheme.
  Like most hon. Members, I have been about in my constituency and have found that there are a great many small farmers who express considerable

  795
  anxiety at this time. I will give two examples, farmers in my constituency whom I know well, both of whom have had the advantage of coming under the Scheme. The first has a fairly small acreage. He is a dairy farmer. As a result of improvements he has been able to put in after putting forward his plan, he has been able to increase the number of cows he keeps on his holding, but he still finds, in present conditions, that he is not the financial success he would like to be. The other is a fanner who has spent his life with livestock. He is very successful with everything he does with a beef herd, but he has expressed the gravest anxiety to me, after taking every possible advantage of the Scheme, about the way his financial affairs are going.
  There is no need to enlarge upon the lack of incentive which small farmers have in carrying on their operations. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) referred to the report by D. H. Evans of the University College of Wales. I draw attention to the actual weekly incomes of farmers on the better land, farming between 20 and 99 acres, as set out in that report. I have selected that report because it contains the most recent figures I can lay my hands on. On the better land, the weekly earnings for the farmer and his wife, on 20 to 99 acres, are £6 2s. 4d. Taking the National Farmers' Union accounts scheme covering the period from 1949–60, farmers with acreages under 50 showed a minimum income of £237 in 1950–51, which is about £4 10s. 0d. a week; and the maximum during that 11-year period was £551, which is 10 guineas a week, These figures cover not only the work of these men and their families but their investment, managerial capacity and the risks which they take in entering such enterprises.
  There is an example of people with very small acreages who seem to be carrying on more successfully. In my area, I have tried to indicate to farmers that there is a precedent as to how they may be able to become financially more successful. I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will perhaps be able to indicate also that there is a possible way in which they can increase their financial success.
  I am speaking of the farms which are run by the Land Settlement Association.
  796
  They have very small acreages. The average holding is only five acres. Yet, according to the 1960 annual report of the Association, 58 per cent. of the people have incomes of over £600 a year and 28 per cent. have over £1,000 a year. That compares very favourably with the figures I quoted earlier.
  Mr. Mackie: The hon. Gentleman is talking now about people who are not farmers. A farmer grows produce on the land and converts it into food. These people carry stocks of pigs and hens and buy all the food for them.
  Mr. Godman Irvine: We can hardly pursue that now, but, whether there is a difference or not, here are people who are on small acreages but are able to make a substantial income compared with those dealt with under this Scheme. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary should look at this to see whether a similar scheme could not be put forward for those covered by this Statutory Instrument to help make their holdings viable units.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary may be advised to look at it but not within the rules of this Scheme.
  Mr. Godman Irvine: If it is not in order on this occasion to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to do so, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should indicate that I shall raise this on a more suitable occasion, when perhaps we can discuss it at greater length.
  11.4 p.m.
  Mr. J. M. L. Prior: Hon. Members on both sides of the House have welcomed this Scheme. It is going to cost £2½ million a year, which is almost the exact amount by which the fertiliser subsidy was reduced this year. That has since been followed by a reduction of £2½ million in prices by the fertiliser manufacturers, so the Government have done an extraordinarily good job. They have given the small fanner £2½ million and have managed to keep the fertiliser prices for the ensuing year at just about the same as last year. We must be grateful to the Government and at the same time thankful to the fertiliser manufacturers.
  I wonder whether the description "farmer" is the right one to describe

  797
  these people, and whether it should not be "small producer". Whether the farmer has 20 acres or whether he has 200 acres is neither hare nor there. It is what he produces on the land which really counts. Like the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie), I want to help the small farmer to make himself more efficient so that he can stay on the land and play his part in society.
  If he is to get his business right, the first thing that the small farmer must be prepared to do is learn to specialise. He must not try to do too many things. If he specialises in one item, whether cows, pigs or even eggs, he should be able to do it properly. Next, he must simplify. He must not try to do too many things. Therefore, specialisation and simplification are needed. Following that, he must learn to co-operate, because without co-operation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) has said, the small farmer will be in great difficulty.
  There are three or four products which the small farmer or producer can produce most efficiently. The problem about those products is that they are largely in over-supply. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) to try to poke fun at the Government about this, but one has only to go back to 1951 to know that milk, for example, which is one of the small farmer's biggest sources of income, was already causing difficulties of overproduction to the Labour Government of 1951. This is a problem which will face any Government, of any party, and it is one that we are trying to face now.
  Milk, eggs and pigs are small-farmer products and we must try to get the small farmer to produce them as cheaply as he can. Expensive production is no good to anyone nowadays. Therefore, the object of the Scheme must be, and is, to try to get these producers to put up buildings and to organise their buildings and land so that they can produce at a lower price. It is remarkable what small farmers have been able to do in the last few years.
  I will give only one example. In the last five years, the amount of feeding-stuffs needed to get a pig to bacon weight has been reduced by 1 cwt. That is a considerable improvement, the sort of improvement which could enable this
  798
  country to compete with any other country. That is exactly what has to be done. It is useless to think that we can isolate our small farmers from world economic facts, because we cannot. Therefore, I regard the Scheme as one Which will enable our small farmers to compete with farmers anywhere in the would. Unless it can stand up to that sort of judgment, it will fail.
  My feeling is that in the last few years, the Scheme has started to go along the right lines. We shall not be able to continue to keep to strict acreages. What matters is production. That we can get efficient production, whether on a 20-acre or a 100-acre holding, is not the important factor. The important thing is cheap production.
  A lot of small farmers can make an income in other ways than merely by straightforward farming. In the South-West and in the West, probably as much money is made by letting a farmhouse and having a few caravans on the farm as is made from farming. As a social problem, if we encourage farming for purely social reasons, that is the right way to encourage it. I should have thought that we could give more encouragement in the provision of bathrooms and decent living accommodation—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is extremely difficult to bring that subject within the rules of order on this Scheme.
  Mr. Prior: I will not pursue that one, Mr. Speaker, but it could all help the viability of the small farm.
  I welcome the Scheme. I am very pleased to see my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on the Front Bench. The Minister comes from the eastern side of England and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary from the southwest—an excellent combination, the areas being respectively a large farming area and a small farming area. I hope that my hon. Friend will enjoy his time as Parliamentary Secretary. I am certain that he has got off to a very good start tonight.
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. Clifford Kenyon: I would add my congratulations to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on his elevation to office. From time to time

  799
  we see different men in his position, but the arguments always seem to be the same; they are trotted out with unfailing regularity year after year. I am afraid that not a great deal of progress is made.
  I do not look upon the Scheme with any great favour—and I have not from the beginning. I feel that the greatest good can come to the small farmer by the amalgamation of small farms into larger units. We should aim for the economic unit. Figures presented by one of my hon. Friends show that the small farmer is in very grave difficulties.
  The hon. Gentleman said that there were 41,000 fanners now working under the Scheme and that up to the end of May £13 million had been spent—an average of £300 per farm. That will not put small farmers on a sound footing. The hon. Gentleman hopes to distribute among those farmers £29 million finally, and that will not put them on an economic footing. It is not the Government who are putting the squeeze on the small farmers. It is the economic circumstances which are developing on every side which are bearing on them. The small farmer brings pressure to bear upon himself. His main sources of income are milk, eggs and pigs. We have a surplus of milk. The small farmer is adding to it. Every gallon he adds to the surplus lowers the overall price. So he is creating conditions which are against himself. The same will happen with eggs, which the Government are already heavily subsidising, and pigs. So the operation of the Scheme creates conditions in which the small farmer himself creates economic conditions against his own interests.
  According to the Scheme, the limit which can be given to one farmer is £1,000. What is that to a farmer with a 100-acre farm? What will happen to the small farmers when the Scheme finishes and they have to bear the full effect of the economic circumstances which are working against them? They cannot be put on an economic basis by this Scheme and they will be back in a few years in the same position as that from which they are to be rescued.
  The economic conditions have been described by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), who showed their effect in Wales. Since 1947, 3,500
  800
  farms have been amalgamated with larger ones. That is the effect of economic conditions, and the money being given to these small farmers will be gradually taken by farmers who take over a number of farms and amalgamate them into larger ones. That is the only way out. Without labouring the point any (further, I would say that this Scheme needs looking at again. It needs very careful re-examination. We need something far more fundamental, something which will be far more permanent—for this is only temporary. We need something which is permanent which we can put—[An HON. MEMBER: "When?"]—I will tell the hon. Member when we have a Labour Government.
  Mr. Speaker: There is a real difficulty about this. I have been extremely tolerant with the hon. Member in his ingenuity, but we cannot, under the rules of order applicable to this discussion, discuss measures which might be taken. We are concerned with this Scheme.
  Mr. Kenyon: I am sorry, Me. Speaker.
  Mr. Harold Davies: We have all had it, do not worry.
  Mr. Kenyon: I am not worrying, but I thought I was in order. I will not pursue the point—I just cannot think of a way to get over it.
  The point I have stressed is something which the Government will have to face. They can bring in this Scheme and then another one, for this is temporary. They have to face it, that these Schemes will run out and fail, and that we need something far more permanent for the small farmers in order that they will be able to exist.
  11.23 p.m.
  Mr. Jasper More: I should like to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend and to express my apology for the fact that, owing to reasons beyond my control, I was not able to be in the House to hear him present the Scheme. I should also like to pay my tribute to the work done by his predecessor.
  I should be dearly tempted to follow the hon. Friend for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) but for certain observations made by yourself, Mr. Speaker. I shall

  801
  endeavour to restrict myself to the Scheme, but I could perhaps refer, as did the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), to the work done by some of the small associations of farmers towards focusing the interest of Members of all parties on these Schemes intended to help small farmers. I must observe in that context that it is appalling that there should not be one single Member of the Liberal Party 'here tonight when we are discussing a Scheme of this kind.
  As as member for some years of the small holdings committee of the county council on which I serve I listened with some astonishment to the observations which have been made about the necessity of enlarging small farms. Hon. Members on both sides of the House must bear in mind the fact that in almost every county we are administering Small Farmer Schemes which owe their origin to a deliberate policy of sub-dividing large farms. I think that the profitability of these farms has on the whole been justified in recent years, and will certainly be aided by a Scheme of this kind.
  I am sorry that there has not been more reference to the social value of these small farms, as opposed to their economic problems, because I am convinced that the farming ladder is one of the most important things in the agricultural picture of this country, and that a Scheme of this kind is greatly to be commended on that account.
  Reference has been made to these Schemes being unjust to the efficient farmer. The basis of these Schemes has always been acreage. It has been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) that the basis should be the actual product of the farm concerned. A more accurate basis would be the profitability of individual farms, because obviously the basis of 20 to 100 acres can be very misleading in deciding whether or not the business in question is really a small farm.
  Whatever the theoretical difficulties of this Scheme, I am sure that it will make a valuable contribution to a real economic problem, and I am glad to give it my support.
  11.27 p.m.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: We have had an interesting debate on these two Schemes, and I should like to thank hon. Members
  802
  for the kind things they have said about my first trial in this office. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) went a little further than I would dare to go this evening. I have not the powers of balance, and neither the ability to find my way round the rules of order nor the experience of the hon. Gentleman.
  I should like to take up one point raised by the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) and by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan). When the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments reported to the House on the purport of the Scheme, they took the objection that although Section 6 of the Act imposes a general limitation of 150 acres on small farm business of any time, in this Scheme we have imposed a limitation of 100 acres on the day on which the farm business plan is submitted to the Minister for approval.
  It is correctly pointed out that a farmer who has less than 100 acres when the plan is submitted, may, by adding land, have more than 150 acres when the time comes for payment, and it is suggested that there was nothing in the Scheme to prevent such a farmer being paid the grant, although he has ceased to qualify under the Act. In so far as this criticism implies that the Scheme is legally not in order, we have what we believe to be the complete answer, which is published in the form of a Memoranda to the Committee's minutes. The argument, which is technical, is set out in full in paragraph 3 of the Memorandum.
  Perhaps I can summarise the argument as follows: according to the definition of a small farmer business in Section 6 of the parent Act, the land comprised in the business must be under 150 acres. I think that all hon. Members would agree to that. We have not redefined again the expression in the Scheme, and this is in accordance with the usual practice, where an expression is intended to have the same meaning as in the parent Act. This is taken care of either by the context—as we are confident is the case here—or by going back to Section 31 of the Interpretation Act of 1889. That is the Act which is used for the interpretation of such matters as this.
  It follows that when we talk about a small farm business in the Scheme we mean a business comprising not more

  803
  than 150 acres of land at any time. The difficulty has arisen because the Act enables my right hon. Friend to impose additional limits on small farm businesses which in this case is the lower limit. He does this in paragraph 4 by saying that the small farm business to to which the Scheme shall apply is a business—among other things—of less than 100 acres on the day on which the plan is submitted for approval. On any other day it is sufficient as long as it is less than 150 acres. Nothing that we have said is intended to imply that the limit should be 250 acres. I think that that answers the query raised by hon. Members on this point.
  I was also asked how many of these schemes had been approved in Scotland. The number is 1,974, out of 4,900 eligible farms. The best thing that I can do—because I do not want to keep the House at this hour—is to try to answer as many points as I can in a short time. My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) and the hon. Member for Workington raised the other main point, concerning the acreage limits, upper and lower. They wanted the Scheme to go below 20 acres. This argument has been put forward on many previous occasions by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but we must remember that this is a once-for-all grant from the Government to the small farmer, to make his business not merely viable but more viable. It should also make him more able to face competition in the future, and to increase his profitability and his economic stability as a farmer.
  When we go below 20 acres we rapidly come into the realm of the small part-time farmer, who needs to work his holding for perhaps only two or three hours a day. This would mean that the farming of this land was not the full-time occupation of this type of farmer and therefore would probably fall outside the original intention of the Act, namely, that, after the application of the Scheme it should provide a reasonable living for a person working full-time on that land.
  There are always hard cases—hon. Members will realise that I have come across them—where somebody fells just below the limit and is thereby excluded. But we have taken care of that to some
  804
  extent, in that we have varied the man-days, so that we can include somebody who has a potential of increasing his working time to 275 man-days, although he may start below that figure in the first place. We have varied the lower limit as far as we can in that respect. But once we vary the limit of the acreage we run into a great many difficulties.
  The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) asked for the top limit to be raised. This would apply particularly to farms in Wales, on marginal land and hill land. I do not want to talk about other schemes or grants, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that there are other schemes designed to help that type of fanner.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Lieut.-Colonel Grosvenor) must, I think, have misunderstood what I said in my opening speech. I did not talk about hill farming in the way he suggested but said that the farmers in receipt of grants under the hill farm livestock improvement legislation had been excluded from benefiting under this Scheme even though they might otherwise qualify. But now we had found a method to bring them in and at the same time be satisfied that they were not receiving two grants at the same time for the same thing. This will mean that about 250 more farmers will benefit.
  The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) and other hon. Members including the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) suggested that we were not dealing properly with the small farmers and that more co-operation was needed among them. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) gave some good advice to the small farmers regarding what they could do to help themselves and said that one of the best ways was to co-operate and use the modern techniques to do so. This was also one of the main points in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Godman Irvine).
  I am glad to say that farmer co-operation is progressing very well and I hope that the small farmers will be helped by these two Schemes. I am grateful for the tributes hon. Members paid to the work of the N.A.A.S. which has done a great deal to help small

  805
  farmers of all types, but it is asking a little too much to suggest that the N.A.A.S. should go in for the management of a group of small farms. My hon. Friend also mentioned his interest in the Land Settlement Association which does not come within the scope of these Schemes. I am glad that the recently achieved results have been so outstanding. Undoubtedly the small farmer will be helped further by these Schemes to improve his efficiency and productivity. It cannot be said that the Government are not helping the small farmer. These Schemes are provided for the express purpose of helping him to improve his profitability and efficiency so that he may face the competition which is ever increasing.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Small Farmer (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Scheme, 1962, a draft of which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.
  Small Farmers (Scotland) Scheme, 1962 [draft laid before the House, 27th June] approved.—[Mr. Leburn.]

  H.M.S. "GANGES"
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peel]
  11.39 p.m.
  Mr. Niall MacDermot: I am very glad to have this opportunity to raise the question of the qualifications for training in H.M.S. "Ganges". H.M.S. "Ganges" is a well-known Royal Naval training establishment at Shotley, near Ipswich. I think that I can best introduce the topic by recounting what happened recently to the son of one of my constituents, who is the licensee of a hotel at Chaddesden. He is fortunate to have a very fine son, whom I have met, called Trevor Daniels, aged 15. For the last two and a half years this boy has entertained a very keen ambition to join the Navy. At that time two and a half years ago he joined the Royal Naval Cadets and has attended regularly at Markeaton Park in Derby as a cadet. During this time it had always been his ambition to join up as soon as he could.
  806
  In February of this year he applied to join as a junior seaman. The recruiting officer at Derby explained to him that, as he had not got the G.C.E. qualification, various of the trades in the Navy would be debarred to him. The boy was in the "C" stream in his school, so it was known to the authorities from the start that he was not a boy with high educational qualifications. He is a boy of considerable character, very keen to get in and, 1 imagine, the type of lad that the Navy would be very glad to have.
  On 19th February he sat in Derby for an entrance examination in two subjects, English and mathematics. He passed those examinations. On 27th February he underwent a medical examination to see if he was medically fit, which he was. He was then signed on. He was given a copy of an impressive document which he had signed himself and which was witnessed by two Naval personnel called, "Candidate's Acknowledgement Form". It begins with these words:
  "I, Trevor James Daniels, understand that I am joining the Royal Navy as a Junior 2nd class for service as a seaman, or communication rating for a period of twelve years' Total Service: of which period Nine years' Service from the age of 18 years will be rendered in the Royal Navy … and the balance in the Royal Fleet Reserve."
  There is then a paragraph to the effect that the conditions of service have been explained to him. The document ends in this way:
  "I acknowledge that I am bound to serve until the end of my engagement and understand that earlier discharge is permitted only in exceptional circumstances."
  The House can well imagine that this was a proud moment for this boy, who thought and believed that he had been accepted for the Royal Navy.
  The next thing that happened was that he received a communication dated 13th April. It was a letter inviting him to attend at the recruiting office on 1st May for entry into the Navy. In the middle of the letter there were these rather ominous words:
  "It must be clearly understood that your entry will be subject to final approval at that establishment."
  The letter then told him what to bring with him. He was told that he would get his uniform on reporting and that his civilian clothing would be returned

  807
  to has home. He was given a railway warrant. He went up to H.M.S. "Ganges" at Ipswich. He was issued with his uniform and his kit. His civilian clothes were duly sent home. He found himself one of an intake of 200 boys of the same age. During the first fortnight many naval matters were explained to them, but they had only about four hours of what could properly be described as schooling, which were all in mathematics. For some reason he had three different instructors.
  The boy is very frank about it. Quite dearly, these (lessons ware above his head. He told me that the matter was new to him. He says, "I could not follow it very well". After a fortnight he and all the other boys underwent another examination. It was a two-hours' written examination.
  At the end of the month, on 29th May, his boy was told (hat he had failed that examination, that he would consequently be discharged from the Royal Navy and that he was to go home the next day. That duly happened. The next day he was sent home—and not he alone. I understand that thirteen other boys from his intake were also sent home, making a total of 14. Seven per cent. of the total intake were sent home after one month.
  A letter was sent to the boy's father which arrived on the same day as the boy. It was from the captain in command of H.M.S. "Ganges". It said:
  "I much regret to inform you that your son Trevor is to be discharged from the Royal Navy 'Unsuitable'.
  I know that Trevor has tried hard, but unfortunately he has still fallen well below the standard we expect at this stage of his course in school. After consulting with the Officers which whom he is most concerned I have reluctantly concluded that he should be discharged ".
  He goes on to say:
  "We are sorry to lose Trevor since he has seemed happy here and has tried hard. He has a pleasant disposition and co-operated well with his Instructors. I am sure you will realise that as he has no chance of keeping up with the course in H.M.S. Ganges it is better for him to make a fresh start now and so avoid a more severe disappointment later".
  He points out that the boy can apply for re-entry to the Navy after he has reached the age of 16¼ if he continues to work at mathematics, making quite clear that
  808
  it was mathematics and nothing else which rendered him unsuitable.
  I should make it quite clear that I am in no way trying to get this decision reversed, nor is the boy's father, nor the boy. They accept and understand that he is not up to the required standard. Surprisingly perhaps, the boy also is not disheartened by the treatment he has had. He is determined to work hard and try again to get into the Royal Navy. He is attending night school classes in mathematics. What the father feels, and I think rightly feels, is that if a certain standard of ability in mathematics is required by H.M.S. "Ganges" and the boy undergoes a test in mathematics before he is accepted, it is disgraceful if that test is not adequate to discover whether the boy is in fact up to required standard.
  It appears monstrous that a boy should understand that he is accepted and communicate to his family and friends that he has been accepted and feel all the joy that his ambition has been fulfilled and then realise a month later that all his hopes are dashed. I am sure the Minister will appreciate the feelings of a boy aged 16 when he is subjected to all the taunts and jokes for his failure.
  What other establishment would dream of dealing with boys in this way, what school, what college? It would be scandalous if they attempted to do so. It is not as if this were a single isolated case. This happened to fourteen boys out of an intake of 200. I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten me and the House by giving information as to whether this is an average figure in other intakes or if it is exceptional. On any basis for this intake alone these figures appear to disclose a disgraceful state of affairs. It is not right to sport with the feelings of young boys like this and take in boys without having by the preliminary test found whether or not they have reached the qualifications required to enable them to undergo their training.
  A minor point in this connection is the waste of public funds involved in issuing warrants, getting boys who are to be discharged in a matter of days brought into the Navy and have them issued with kit. What happens to their kit and equipment? The boy was given to understand that his kit, apart from

  809
  the actual suit, would be burned and destroyed. I find that hard to believe. If it is not so does it mean that some other boys coming in on a later intake will be issued with second-hand clothing? These are minor points. The main question is what possible justification can there be for subjecting a boy to a test in mathematics and telling him only a month later that he is not up to the required standard of mathematics although he passed that test?
  11.50 p.m.
  The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): I congratulate the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) on his reappearance in the House. It is nice to see Mm back. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised this subject, but I do not wish it to be felt that, as the Admiralty Minister responsible in the House for all naval questions, I regard Adjournment de-debates as the only occasions when information may be solicited. I am always available to see hon. Members if they have problems, to answer their letters and to answer Parliamentary Questions, with, if necessary, an Adjournment debate at the end. However, this debate gives me an opportunity to put some of the facts before the House and to clear up some of the anxieties which the hon. Gentleman obviously has and which he has voiced in calm and statesmanlike terms this evening.
  I endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said about this boy. He is a good boy, the type of boy we should like to have in the Navy. He did his first test at a recruiting centre on 19th February. It is (true that arithmetic was the subject in which he appeared to be weakest. The tests which we conduct are exactly the same in every one of the fifty recruiting centres throughout the country, and they are designed to give us a broad picture of a boy's potential There is more than a test in arithmetic. I think that the hon. Gentleman suggested that there were only two tests, arithmetic and English. In fact, the boys are tested in spelling, there is also a test to see whether they have an elementary knowledge of practical things, and there is a test of mental agility. As the Navy becomes more technical, it is important that we should try to forecast whether these young boys of
  810
  15 will match the requirements and be able to keep up with their classes and become useful members of the Royal Navy. This four-part test in practical matters, arithmetic, spelling and general intelligence takes thirty minutes.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that it is an imperfect test. In fact, we have followed the careers of 20,000 seamen who have taken the test in order to see whether it has proved to be a fair measure of their potential. This research has produced considerable confirmation that the test is fair. We find that the better boys do in the test the more quickly they get promotion the further they advance in their careers and the longer they stay in the Navy. We take pride in the fact that this is so. In my view, therefore, this initial test is not in doubt.
  There is, of course—the present case is a typical example—the problem of the marginal recruit, the boy whose test produces a mark close to the pass mark. We pass a boy with 45 out of 100, and this boy's mark was 46. We have a long experience of what to expect from these boys. In the vast majority of cases, we find that those who achieve a pass mark make good in their training, and, even though the test may reveal a weakness in one or other subject, we feel that it is generally worth persevering.
  I acknowledge that when we have a boy of good character and keenness, with a record as this boy has in the Sea Cadets, the recruiter is more likely to take a lenient view and say, perhaps, that the boy will make good when he goes to H.M.S. "Ganges". I think that the hon. Gentleman spoke of 7 par cent. of our intake, and I think that this is about right—
  Mr. MacDermot: Disgraceful.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: To shout "Disgraceful" is not really to be very helpful. May I be allowed to continue my argument? I did say that the hon. Gentleman used statesmanlike terms. Perhaps I ought to withdraw that.
  Our intake in 1961–62 was 2,700 boys. In the previous year it was no more than 2,100. We have been expanding our intake, as the Navy wants these young boys and wants to help to train them. In spite of this increase, our failure figure has been only 50, which

  811
  represents an over-generous assessment in the marginal recruiting of just one boy for each recruiting centre in one year. I doubt whether in our national education system we would find a better result. Each recruiting centre throughout the country makes a marginal assessment on those who fall in the grey area and makes a mistake of one boy a year. I do not think that unreasonable.
  We could, of course, raise the standard of these tests and say that 50 is the pass mark. But this would be to destroy and discourage good potential material and we have not thought that right. This is a matter of balance, and I think that the hon. Member will agree on that. Some boys are obviously through; then there is the middle area which is uncertain; and then there is the area below that whose boys we cannot take.
  Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. Here we are dealing with a specific qualification requiring a given standard of ability in mathematics. Surely it is not beyond the ingenuity of the Royal Navy to devise a test which will find out whether off not a boy of 15 has the mathematical ability to do this course?
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: What the hon. Member says seems reasonable on the face of it. I can show him the papers outside—and perhaps this matter could have been better dealt with there than in the House. We have the analysis of 20,000 results of seaman boys, and these show that there is nothing much wrong with the test.
  This boy got 11 out of 30 for arithmetic. He reported to "Ganges" on 1st May and got the classification test, when he scored 9 out of 20 in the arithmetic test. Again, this was a pass mark. On the 18th May he sat what we call the "Schoolmaster's test", which is more in the nature of an ordinary examination than an 11-plus examination. In that test he got none out of 100. It seemed that this boy could add and subtract quite efficiently but that he could not do long divisions and multiplications.
  "Ganges" still did not reject him— and that is a point missed in the hon. Member's remarks, by accident I am sure. They were so surprised that they
  812
  gave him a repeat test, with the same long division and multiplication, but changing the figures. He sat for this on 25th May and he scored 15 out of 100. They then said, not unreasonably, that despite their desire to take the boy, they felt that he was bound to hold back his classmates and would not make the grade at that stage. They therefore felt they had to reject him.
  There are two valid points of criticism. First, was it right to give such short notification? I apologise for this. It was done for one reason only—that it was decided to give him a second chance. Had that other chance not been given, the notification would have been longer.
  A letter was sent to the parents two days beforehand, and it was followed by a telegram. I may say at this point that only 60 per cent. of parents acknowledge the letters. But because of the second test, there was much less warning than is desirable. I have drawn the attention of the commanding officer to this. Normally there would be three or four days' notice, and this is to be adhered to as strictly as possible. The other point, which also is a valid one, is whether we ought, perhaps, to warn parents and boys that they will have a further test when they get there and that if they do not match up to the test there is the danger, as happened in this case, that they will be rejected.
  Before dealing with that point, I should like to revert to the hon. Member's question of whether it is typical that roughly 7 per cent. are rejected. I have the figures for January to March, 1962, when we entered 931 boys and 40 were discharged for academic failures. That was 4 per cent. From April to June, 1962, we entered 639 boys and 45, or 7 per cent., were discharged. Over the first six months of this year, therefore, the total entered was 1,570, of whom 85 were rejected, which is rather less than 6 per cent.
  In addition, another 6 per cent. are rejected either for disciplinary reasons or because they cannot settle into naval life, they do not like it or they have faults of character which, it is felt, are not likely to be ironed out in the tuition which we give them. Therefore, it is not an unrepresentative figure.

  813
  I have examined carefully the various papers that are sent to a boy and his parents. One is what I call the consent paper, which is seat to the parents of juniors under the age of 21, and which states:
  "I hereby certify that my son or ward … has my full consent to join the Navy."
  It its right that those parents should be warned that if a boy does not match up or if he holds back his classmates, we will have to send him home and he will have to have, as happened in this case, special tuition, otherwise it is unlikely that he will be successful when he has another try.
  I therefore suggest that something in the following sense should be inserted as an explanatory note in what I call the consent form, which would be sent by the recruiter to the parent:
  "Parents will appreciate that a small number of boys who have passed the entry test may find either that they are unable to maintain the necessary progress under training or that they are unsuited to naval life. It will be necessary "—
  perhaps it may be necessary—
  "to discharge such boys, both in their own interests and in the interests of the Service."
  If that is put in the form, parents will be forewarned that the recruiting test is of a rudimentary nature and that a second test on arrival at the establishment, which we call the schoolmaster's test, a more rigorous one in a rather wider spectrum, will be the final judgment whether the boy is likely to match up to the needs of the Service. For this reason, because he has drawn my attention to the matter, I am grateful to the hon. Member and I hope that he will feel that this will put right an omission and weakness which, I think, exists in our present system.
  Mr. MacDermot: I should like to thank the Minister for the helpful suggestion which he has made. I appreciate that every Service Department must preserve the right to discharge people who prove to be unsuitable through no fault of their own be-
  814
  cause something comes to light later which shows that they do not fit into Service life. A warning to this effect certainly would be most helpful.
  Would not the Minister also consider a little further whether it would not be wise, perhaps, to consider making the initial test a little less rudimentary? If it is a regular feature that 7 per cent. are discharged after a month and that, I gather from the hon. Gentleman's figures, half of those are discharged on academic grounds, this shows that the test is too rudimentary. Bearing in mind what effect this will have on the feelings of the boys, it is a serious consideration. I suggest that it should be considered whether this test should not be stiffened up a little so that it is able to sort the wheat from the chaff more efficiently at that stage.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer that. I am able to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that our recruiting authorities are looking at this very point. We are always examining whether we can raise the standard of the tests a little and reduce wastage without missing potentially good boys. We are considering whether we could make the initial test a little more comprehensive, a little better, so that the grey area where boys are marginal is reduced. I knew that this was being done before the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned it.
  In view of what he has said, I will pay special attention to it to see whether we can further improve what I think he will acknowledge has in essence been fairly satisfactory. I know that some boys are rejected, but when we follow the careers of the 20,000 seamen who have done the test it is clear that there is nothing much wrong with it. If minor adjustments can improve it further, we shall be pleased to make them.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Twelve o'clock.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  London Green Belt (Future Developments)
  London Green Belt (Future Developments)
  New Housing Estates (Services)
  New Housing Estates (Services)
  Greater London Boroughs (Grouping)
  Greater London Boroughs (Grouping)
  Abandoned Mills (Dangers to Children)
  Abandoned Mills (Dangers to Children)
HOUSING
  Housing Difficulties, West Ham
  Housing Difficulties, West Ham
  Rent Act, 1957
  Rent Act, 1957
  Slum Clearance
  Slum Clearance
  Housing Act, 1961
  Housing Act, 1961
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Overseas Tourists, Wales
  Overseas Tourists, Wales
  Mobile Coal Mine Exhibit (Stockholm Trade Fair)
  Mobile Coal Mine Exhibit (Stockholm Trade Fair)
  Official Receivers in Bankruptcy
  Official Receivers in Bankruptcy
  Knitwear (Imports from Hong Kong)
  Knitwear (Imports from Hong Kong)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Additional Employment)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Additional Employment)
  Central Electricity Generating Board (Consultations)
  Central Electricity Generating Board (Consultations)
  Blyth, Bedlington and Seaton Delaval
  Blyth, Bedlington and Seaton Delaval
  Industrial Development, Scotland
  Industrial Development, Scotland
  Monopolies Commission (Xylonite)
  Monopolies Commission (Xylonite)
  Bankruptcies
  Bankruptcies
  Development Districts
  Development Districts
  New Industrial Building, Northern Region
  New Industrial Building, Northern Region
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax (Blind People)
  Income Tax (Blind People)
  Local Authority Loans
  Local Authority Loans
  £ Sterling (Value)
  £ Sterling (Value)
  Decimal Coinage (Committee's Report)
  Decimal Coinage (Committee's Report)
  Bank Rate
  Bank Rate
  Converted Houses (Valuation)
  Converted Houses (Valuation)
  HIGH COURT (JUDGMENT MONEYS)
  HIGH COURT (JUDGMENT MONEYS)
  LAW OFFICERS' DEPARTMENT (CIVIL SERVANTS)
  LAW OFFICERS' DEPARTMENT (CIVIL SERVANTS)
  SLOUGH BOARD OF MAGISTRATES (MAJOR SODEN)
  SLOUGH BOARD OF MAGISTRATES (MAJOR SODEN)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Metropolitan Police Cars (Safety Belts)
  Metropolitan Police Cars (Safety Belts)
  Probation Service
  Probation Service
  Airguns and Shotguns (Young Children)
  Airguns and Shotguns (Young Children)
  Police Constables and Probation Officers (Salaries)
  Police Constables and Probation Officers (Salaries)
  Public Order Act, 1936
  Public Order Act, 1936
  Young Offenders (Detention Costs)
  Young Offenders (Detention Costs)
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  District Officers
  District Officers
NYASALAND
  Financial Aid
  Financial Aid
EDUCATION
  Business and Management Education (Teachers)
  Business and Management Education (Teachers)
  Local Government Act, 1958 (Inquiries)
  Local Government Act, 1958 (Inquiries)
  School Dentists
  School Dentists
  School Places, Manchester
  School Places, Manchester
  Teachers (Overseas Service)
  Teachers (Overseas Service)
  Training Colleges (Ministerial Guidance)
  Training Colleges (Ministerial Guidance)
  Further Education (Student Releases)
  Further Education (Student Releases)
HONG KONG
  Policies and Achievements
  Policies and Achievements
TRANSPORT
  Rochdale Committee (Report)
  Rochdale Committee (Report)
ROADS
  Trunk Road System, Kent
  Trunk Road System, Kent
  London-Basingstoke Motorway
  London-Basingstoke Motorway
  NUCLEAR TESTS
  NUCLEAR TESTS
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agricultural Holdings, England
  Agricultural Holdings, England
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Retirement Pensions, Hayes and Harlington
  Retirement Pensions, Hayes and Harlington
  Employers' Contributions
  Employers' Contributions

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool
The Marquess of Linlithgow—Took the Oath.

THALIDOMIDE AND EXPECTANT MOTHERS
2.35 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it can become permissible for a doctor to terminate the pregnancy of a woman when it has been definitely established that thalidomide has been administered to her.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, the circumstances in which a pregnancy may lawfully be terminated were indicated in the direction given to the jury in 1938 in the leading case of Rex v. Bourne; that is, that the act must be done in good faith to preserve the mother's life. The fact that the pregnancy, if allowed to take its course, would be likely to make the woman a physical or mental wreck would entitle the jury to take the view that the operation was for the preservation of the mother's life. The possibility that a child may be born deformed because, for example, the mother had taken thalidomide is not in itself a lawful ground for terminating a pregnancy.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, could I say how pleased I am that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has recognised that this is such a serious matter of such concern to the people of this country, and indeed to other countries, that he has thought fit to answer this Question? May I therefore, ask him a few questions of a medico-legal character?—but I can
768
assure him I do not ask him to answer immediately. I would much prefer him to take them away and digest them and then give his considered opinion.
Would he not agree that when the statement was made in the 1938 Bourne case we had not moved into what one might call the chemo-therapy era of medicine, and nobody before that, in this century or the last, could envisage a time when it was possible for drugs which had been inadequately tested to be given to a woman and that subsequently that woman would give birth to a child which is severely crippled? Therefore, I quite understand that at that time it would be decided again that an abortion could be permitted only where the mother's health had first consideration. But might I put this to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor? In an event where it is known that an infant is going to be born which will be severely crippled for the whole of its life, where perhaps it is without arms or legs, or indeed both, where no doctor could say that the child would not have a normal span of life, might survive to 70, should not there be compassionate consideration given to all those circumstances by the law of the land? When we make these decisions as lawyers, surely we should—if I may respectfully ask the Lord Chancellor—take into consideration now the welfare not only of the mother but of the child?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I will, of course, carefully consider all that the noble Lady has said, but I think I should point out that I am advised that the fact that the woman has taken this drug during pregnancy does not by any means entail that her child will be born abnormal; and I am advised that there is no sufficient basis for predicting that abnormality will result in these circumstances. The noble Lady will recognise that any change in the law would mean legislation. The fact that this drug was withdrawn at the end of November, 1961, should also be taken into account, since it is almost certain that this drug can result in the birth of children with congenital abnormalities only if it is administered during the early stages of pregnancy, and therefore the risk of further cases arising will virtually be finished by the end of next

769
month. But I will, of course, write to the noble Lady in the light of the observations she has made.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask another question, because this is such a serious matter? As the noble and learned Lord knows, a child is viable at 28 weeks; and it was on May 17, only eight weeks ago that the Ministry of Health wrote to the doctors of this country warning that, although this drug had been taken from the market by manufacturers in December, nevertheless women in the country Who had this drug in their medicine cupboards were still taking it, and cases had come to the notice of the Ministry. Therefore it is possible for a woman to have taken this drug and yet the fœtus has not yet reached the viable stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lady's Question will draw attention to the desirability of throwing this drug away if it is in any medicine cupboard in the country. But so far as questions about the Ministry of Health circulated and communicated documents are concerned, I am not in a position to say anything with regard to that, because her Question was solely concerned with law.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask a final question on a legal point? The noble and learned Lord said that the law to-day says that only the mother's welfare must be taken into consideration. In these special cases these women must have been of a nervous character, otherwise they would not have had this drug administered. Therefore, it could be argued "hat the nervous condition of these women would be aggravated if they had to go to full term. Therefore, on psychological grounds, would it be in order for these pregnancies to be terminated in the interests of the mother?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in a fairly recent case, that of the Queen v. Newton and Stungo in 1958, Mr. Justice Ashworth gave a direction to the jury to the effect that it is always open to a doctor to terminate a pregnancy if he is satisfied that the state of mind of the expectant mother is such as to justify that course for the purpose of preserving her mental health. The Act
770
must be done in good faith for the purpose of preserving the life or mental or physical health of the woman. I think that that really contains the answer to the noble Baroness's Question.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I thank the noble and learned Lord.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, on another point, may I ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack this question? In view of the possibly high cost to the country of these cases, will the Government give consideration to the possibility of claims against the drug companies concerned?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I would say in answer to the noble Lord that that really is a quite different Question from that which was put to me on the Order Paper. I am afraid I am not in a position to give the noble Lord an answer to it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to advance the Second Reading of the Finance Bill (now standing for Tuesday the 31st instant) to Monday the 30th instant.—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (BRIGHOUSE) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (DONCASTER) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (SIDMOUTH) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

PENALTIES FOR DRUNKENNESS BILL
2.47 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

LOTTERIES AND GAMING BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

THE PILKINGTON REPORT ON BROADCASTING
2.49 p.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order), on the Resolution moved yesterday toy Viscount Hailsham:—"That this House approves the Memorandum on the Report of the Committee on Broadcasting, I960 (Cmnd. 1770)."
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, sometimes a two-day debate is not successful, for what needs to be said is usually said on the first day. But on this occasion our interest in the second day will be stimulated by the maiden speech of the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack. I am sure we are all greatly looking forward to hearing a full speech from him, although it is true that he has spoken on a number of occasions since his arrival on Tuesday.
I feel that I have some duty to endeavour to be a link between yesterday's debate and to-day's proceedings. Therefore, if I should cover some of the ground of yesterday, I trust that I may be forgiven, and I hope that I may give some personal conclusions, and in one case recommendations to Her Majesty's Government. I thought I should make it clear that I would be doing so in a personal capacity, because my Party, rather like the Government, feels that it needs time for reflection on this very important matter.
The noble and learned Viscount who leads the House said in his speech that he did not ask us to mortgage OUT consciences in giving approval to the White Paper. Therefore, at this stage may I say to the noble Viscount that, for my part, and I believe I speak for the
772
majority of my friends, we give a cautious welcome to this White Paper? My Lords, I should have liked to say, and will in fact say it now in spite of the absence of the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, that we extend our sincere congratulations to him on his elevation to a new office. I do not know whether we envy him, taking into account my noble Leader, my noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh, and other agricultural experts who no doubt will be "at him" at the first opportunity. I certainly wish him a long life. I say that, although I do not wish him a long political life in a Ministerial position; but, however long it may be, I hope it will be a happy one.
My Lords, I believe the view is generally held in all quarters of this House that we had a brilliant speech from the noble and learned Viscount Lord Hailsham. It was admirable in its content. It could not have been easy for him, because he was a contentious figure in the early debates on the setting up of commercial television. I read his speech last year when I was preparing my statement on my own debate on television, and, in listening to him yesterday while he weighed up one side and the other, I could not help feeling that his basic convictions are the same. The noble Viscount spoke with restraint, and I am glad he did so. I only wish that some other noble Lords had shown equal restraint. There were occasions yesterday when speeches were received with a degree of distaste from all sections of the House. I believe there is a code in Parliament that there should not be special pleading; but that came out on a number of occasions yesterday. I feel that this is to be regretted, and I hope that this afternoon, and on a later occasion when we debate the second White Paper, such speeches will not be made.
May I say to the noble and learned Viscount that the Government have taken a wise and cautious view of the Pilkington Report, but they must be aware that they are going to face considerable pressure. We know a good deal about pressure groups. I would beg the Government, and particularly the noble Viscount, to remain staunch to certain principles and not to give way to any narrow pressure group. What is at stake is not the welfare of a particular

773
side of an industry, but, I believe, in the end, the welfare of our people.
To illustrate the pressures which the Government will face, I would draw the attention of the House to a letter that was sent out on June 30 by the chairman of Associated Television Limited. It was addressed to the shareholders, and I believe I can quote it because it has appeared in the Press. The chairman writes:
"The Pilkington Committee has tabled a biased report which has one apparent objective: to destroy in one viscious blow the whole structure which has given the public the programmes they enjoy, and, in its place, to set up a second monolithic State institution. This is Lord Reith all over."
They go on:
"It is utterly contrary to the whole tradition of a free enterprise country. It is outrageous enough that the Pilkington Committee emphatically disregarded the express preference of the viewing public. Equally deplorable is the suggestion that advertising time on television should be sold by the Authority—in plain words, sold by a Government agency in competition with the newspapers."
It is interesting for us to remember the fears—the genuine fears—that were expressed about the effect on newspapers of their advertising revenue being taken away by television. Perhaps some of these companies feel, having regard to the fact that newspapers participate to such a great extent in these television companies, that so long as they do participate all is well. The chairman goes on:
"In protection of a free enterprise society and in protection of your own interests in that society, you should immediately write to your local Member of Parliament urging an outright rejection of the dangerous recommendations of the Pilkington Committee."
Here is a very strong plea by the chairman of the company to its shareholders to bring pressure on the Government through Members of Parliament. I will not quote the figures I gave last year of the profits of this particular company, but, my Lords, I would ask the House to remember that in the past twelve months the profits of these commercial companies have been in the region of £28 million.
We have before us the Pilkington Report. I suppose it came to us as a shattering blow, and I, like the noble and learned Viscount, agree that it was a good thing that it should come. I do not believe there has ever been a Government Report that has been so
774
widely read, even if the people have been dependant on their newspapers for its content. In fairness to the newspapers, whether they be shareholders of television or not, I feel that they gave a reasonable coverage to the Report, and I think the public now have a pretty good idea of what was in it. Considerable attack has been made on the Pilkington Committee, and I am glad that the noble Viscount spoke on this matter as he did. The members of the Committee were the selection of Her Majesty's Government, who set out to find as representative a group of people as possible. There was a sportsman, who has considerable experience, practical experience, of the training of youth; there was a housewife from Scotland; an industrialist; an artiste of considerable reputation; and others were people of considerable esteem in their own particular profession or business. This Committee received a tremendous amount of information. Nobody was denied or refused the opportunity of putting his point of view before it.
The Committee have now made their Report, and I must say that when I saw it I was delighted, but perhaps, after some reflection, it appeared to be slightly off balance. There is nothing in this world that is completely black or completely white, and there is some virtue in even those Parties and societies for which we have very little affection. Therefore, I would urge that we should look at this Report from a general point of view. There is much that is good; there is much that is sound. Some of the proposals are not acceptable, perhaps, because they are not practicable. We have the Government White Paper, and I have said that we give cautious support to it. It must be obvious to all that the Government, and I believe the people, are not happy with the situation in commercial television to-day. Equally, as I have said, there are some who are not happy with the proposals in the Pilkington Report. My Lords, I think we must look at the I.T.A., as the noble Viscount suggested yesterday, in the way that, whilst we may be opposed to commercial advertising and commercial television, we must recognise that it is here and we must live with it.
I personally have doubts as to how the Government will reconstruct this

775
Authority. I think perhaps we should look first at the means of removing the various vices which are there. The most obvious vice (perhaps, the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, will not agree with me here; but I regard it as a vice) is the exorbitant profits that have been arising—£28 million, approximately one-third of its total income. My Lords, I believe that that is far too high a proportion. But how are these profits to be dealt with? I personally should be opposed to a system of special taxation on these profits. I think it would be wrong. But if we continue the present system, in which contractors provide programmes and sell advertising space, I do not think it could be dealt with satisfactorily merely by raising the rents for the use of the air, the wavelength, by the programme contractors; because inevitably this increase would be passed on to the advertisers, and eventually it would be passed on to the consumer. Therefore, my Lords, if we are going to raise the rents charged to the programme contractors, I believe that the Postmaster General or the Authority will need to have some control over the rates charged by the contractors to the advertisers.
As I understand it, at the moment advertising time is sold on the basis of a willing advertiser and what the article can bear. The rates have continually increased. In fact, I have a statement here by the chairman of Beecham's, one of the largest of the advertisers on commercial television. In the report for 1961–62, he writes:
"Home profits declined by 8 per cent. due primarily to sharp increases in the operating costs, and I may mention particularly a steep rise in the cost of television advertising. The combined effect of increased rates charged by the programme companies and the tax on television advertising was to put up the cost to us of an equivalent amount of television advertising by more than one-third."
We see, therefore, the pressure on the advertiser to pay the rates. I do not think it was anticipated by Her Majesty's Government, When the Chancellor of the Exchequer put a 10 per cent. tax on the advertsing contractors, that it would be passed on immediately to the advertiser, and, of course, to the consumer. Therefore, we say, and I hope the House will accept it, that if we are
776
dealing with rents we must also deal with advertising rates. There is a tremendous demand by companies, particularly in the toothpaste and pill business, for commercial advertising, but time is limited. We limit commercial television advertising to 7 minutes in the hour, and we are in fact creating a scarcity. Therefore, the free reins of free enterprise do not exist.
My Lords, there is another side to this matter. When we talk of a fear of monopoly in regard to the programmme contractors, we must beware that we do not create a monopoly for the advertiser. Many companies might well use commercial television advertising to advantage, but the rates that are being charged are so great that they are excluded from this means of advertising. Therefore, I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that when the Government are considering this they must take into account that there must be no monopoly position of advertisers.
I do not believe that the answer lies entirely in the provision of a second commercial channel. It may well be that increased advertising time might initially reduce the rates. But I have some experience of advertising, and I know that once a particular company in an industry is committed to heavy advertising, it must continue to do so. If it goes out, it does so with absolutely dire consequences to itself. Therefore, we say that, if you have a two-channel system of advertising, you will bring more and more companies into the business and that may well, in the end, drive up the rates—unless, of course, the Government accept the view that there must be some control over the rates. On the other side, we are to-day spending £90 million in advertising on commercial television, all being borne by production. I wonder whether in our present circumstances we should contemplate an increased charge on industry, perhaps in the region of £150 million to £160 million. I wonder whether it is right that we should do so. I hope, therefore, that the Government will take into account that there are other factors besides entertainment: the economic consequences of our actions also must be considered.
My Lords, there has been some criticism of the programmes on I.T.V. I

777
must admit that I do not see a great deal of I.T.V.—I am bit of a B.B.C. fan, but I will immediately say the reason why. I freely admit that there are many good programmes on I.T.V.; but for me, and I believe for many others, all are spoilt, and many completely ruined, by what is called the natural break. I know that what is a natural break is a matter for dispute. I believe that many of the young writers for commercial television are instructed that, when they produce their script, they must produce a natural break. But I think in many ways these natural breaks are abused. I remember a programme in which I was particularly interested, a tour through Coventry Cathedral. I am not a Churchman, but there are some things which have sanctity. But when we went through Coventry Cathedral with the commercial television cameras, we had that programme broken twice by commercial advertising. I cannot believe that in a tour through a cathedral there is such a thing as a natural break.
The noble Viscount said yesterday that he hoped that the commercial contractors would, in their own interests, do something to reduce their profits. I believe that overnight these programme contractors could do two things. If they finished with what is called the "natural break" and contented themselves with advertising at the beginning or the end of a programme, they would reduce their revenue; they might then make themselves reasonably respectable in other people's eyes; and, above all else they would improve their programmes—and this, I am told, is what they would wish to do. I suggest that this is a challenge to them: I hope they will accept it.
There is much more that could be said. I am not particularly happy about paragraph 7. Naturally, I support the 12-year Charter for the B.B.C. The B.B.C, like Parliament, is built on a tradition, whereas commercial television and its Act is largely man-made, with all the possible errors that may result. Personally, I would be reluctant, in view of our previous experience, to agree to a 12-year Television Act unless, of course, there was a break period within it so that Parliament had the opportunity of considering the effects and the developments within that Act. But here I would not press it, because we do not
778
yet know what are the Government proposals. These we shall look forward to with considerable anxiety.
We now come to the B.B.C. I think they came out of the Report well—perhaps, some may say, too well. There are times when their programmes fall below the high level that they normally attain. I remember "Panorama" of last Monday. I hope that that will not occur again. But, my Lords, the B.B.C. has built up this tremendous reputation, not only in this country but throughout the Commonwealth and the world. As one who has lived overseas, I know what it means, not only to an Englishman but to others, when the London voice comes out—" This is London". This reputation, this position, has been built up by the independence of the B.B.C.; by the fact that it is not dependent upon Government grant, Government finance. I hope that this will continue. I must say that here I am like the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell: I am rather disturbed with paragraphs 59 and 60. I hope it does not mean that, because the Government have not grasped the nettle of raising the licence fee, they expect and are prepared that the B.B.C. should run into a deficit on its current account. I think this would be utterly wrong.
I do not believe that the figure that has been used in this House, of a £6 licence fee, would be necessary. I believe that this figure was based on the B.B.C. assumption that they would be given local broadcasting, that they would have a second channel with colour, and that there would be much more extended hours of television. I believe that they could operate on a licence figure of £5. I think it is interesting, if the House would bear with me on this, to look at the accounts of the B.B.C. for the present year. They just about broke even. They had a net revenue of £30½ million, with their costs approximately the same—there being a small deficit of £74,000. Their television had a revenue of £20 million, and its cost was slightly over £19 million. This was sustained, not on the £4 that the licence holder pays but on £3, because the Government have retained an excise tax of £1. It is interesting to note (and I think this should be said for the benefit of the public) what in fact the Govern-

779
ment have retained in one way or another from the licence fees that the public have paid.
First there is the retention from licence income, mainly attributable to the cost of the collection of licence fees. Since 1947, they have retained £29,666,000. It is fair to say that that particular extraction has been discontinued. In Excise duty, which commenced in 1958, the Government have collected £49,508,000. Then the B.B.C. has paid income tax. In that period, it has paid income tax of £14,900,000. If those figures are added togther you will see that the licence holders have paid, but the Government have retained for one purpose or another, a figure in the region of £94 million. This is a very large sum of money, when we consider the income upon which the B.B.C. has had to produce all its programmes. I would suggest to the Government that they grasp this thorny problem of the licence fee, because I think it would be wrong to break the principle on which the B.B.C. has been built and to destroy its independence.
I believe that it could be done in this way. I believe that the B.B.C. should be permitted to borrow on capital account a figure of £30 million—that is. £10 million more than the figure in the White Paper. I suggest this figure because my information (I speak subject to correction, but I am fairly sure about it) is that the capital cost of the B.B.C. moving from 405 to 625 lines will be in in the region of £30 million in the next three, four or five years. It depends how quickly we change over throughout the country. In the past, the B.B.C. has paid for its capital costs out of its income, but it cannot provide this amount immediately out of its revenue. I therefore suggest that it should be permitted to borrow that sum of money on capital account. It would then be possible for the B.B.C. to be viable and to meet its development costs up to 1964 with a net licence fee of £4 10s. 0d.—in other words, the whole of the amount raised by the licence fee, which would be increased to £4 10s. 0d., would be passed over to the B.B.C.
Then, when the second channel comes to London, in the London area that licence fee should be raised to £5; and as soon as the 625-line second channel
780
spread throughout the country the licence fee should be raised there, also. I believe it is anticipated that by 1968 there will be 14 million licence holders. That means an income to the B.B.C. of some £70 million. I believe that that sum would be adequate for the B.B.C. to meet all its obligations: its first and second channels of television—even colour—and its sound obligations. It is interesting to note that, while the cost to the B.B.C. of one channel is £18 million to £19 million a year, the operating costs of the second channel will be in the region of £9 million. This is due to the fact that the Corporation will be able to utilise many of their existing facilities.
I believe, from the figures I have seen, that this is a practical suggestion. I think I would stand by it, because I am utterly opposed to the B.B.C.'s losing its independence and being dependent, from one year to another, upon the whims of the Treasury, or even any other outside body. Therefore—and I know that this will not be very favourably received in the country—I think the principle behind this is such that we should be courageous and put this case, because I think we shall rue the day if we do not stand by this principle.
I must say—and here I would depart a little, if I may, from the White Paper and the Pilkington Report—that I much regret the Pilkington Committee were not requested to look into the question of the external services. I would ask the Government whether they will give us some of their ideas when we have our second White Paper, because serious dangers are arising from reductions in our external sound radio broadcasts. I feel that it is right to draw the attention of the House to the fact that in March, 1962, the B.B.C.'s service in the United States, where they provide newsreel materials and B.B.C. recordings to over 1,500 radio stations, who use that material to provide 1,100 hours of broadcasting, went through the serious economies that the Government have undertaken. This may be outside the sphere of this debate, but it is a clear illustration of the dangers which may arise if you put the B.B.C. within the orbit of the Treasury. Like any other organisation the B.B.C. must plan ahead. It must set out its development and its research, and unless it knows at a certain period

781
what will be its income, it cannot satisfactorily go ahead.
My Lords, one last thing. I heard some things yesterday to the effect that television itself makes very little impact upon our people. Frankly I do not believe it. I believe that the amount of viewing which is done, and the amount of material which must be absorbed, maybe subconsciously, when it comes in to our homes through the television receiver, will, in the end, make a very great impact upon our way of life. Science and engineering have made our life easier; they have reduced drudgery. Radio and television have opened a new world to the aged and to the sick. Equally, they open a world of challenge to our youth. What I think should concern us in Parliament is what sort of world is being opened to our youth, and what sort of entertainment is being given to our aged and our sick.
3.24 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, let me first begin by declaring that I have an indirect interest in this matter in the fact that I happen to be a director of a company which, in addition to a very wide range of activities and enterprises, is a shareholder in a television company. I may also add that I take no part whatever in making the programmes, or in the conduct of the television company, and therefore I am in a perfectly good position to criticise television all round. But I do not think that that indirect interest could inhibit me in anything I am going to say to-day, with which I think there will probably be a large measure of agreement; because I am so interested to find that this debate is not, for the most part, running on any sort of Party lines. It really is an attempt by people to give their best ideas about what ought to be done; and it is in that spirit—and I hope I always try to speak in that spirit in this House—that I speak to-day.
I want to put in a plea for reasonable liberty of choice for millions of viewers, and for some sense of proportion in our appraisal of the facts and the situation. Let me say at once that I think a great deal of the White Paper is good and sound. I also agree with something said by the Leader of the House yesterday, when he said that no Government can wholly wash their hands of anything
782
touching our standards of taste and behaviour. To that I would fully subscribe. May I add that I think we all not only appreciate, but respect, what he said yesterday: that he does not repent his own "shrill cries" (if I may adopt his own expression in the debate) on the Beveridge Report seven years ago. While I agree with what the Leader of the House said about the function of the Government, I must say that the idea that you should order what people are to see and to hear is repugnant to me, and there I find myself at one with a great deal of what was said by Lord Francis-Williams late last night.
Thirty-five years ago I drafted and piloted through the House of Commons the Cinematograph Films Bill. I think it was a very good Act. At any rate, it proved itself in that, though I asked Parliament to pass it for only ten years, that Act has been re-enacted unanimously every ten years since. When I was piloting that Bill, I was pressed very strongly to introduce a censorship of films. I rejected that proposal, and Parliament rejected it, because I said I thought that the public would be the censors, and that the trade would act with sense and decency. And that is what happened. The trade—the exhibitors—set up their own censorship, and my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth (Ah ! I am so glad he has come back) is now the respected Chairman of the Board of Censors.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: The President.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: Yes. And that well-known signature of Lord Morrison of Lambeth, when we see it on the screen, is a warranty of purity and good taste.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I must say I think he does very well. I do not think he has eliminated all violence or crime or sex from the cinemas, but I do not think he need. Again, I think that what he wants to do, and what I think he does do, is to have a sense of proportion.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, if the noble Earl will forgive me, we classify films with a "U", an "A" or an "X", which puts people on fair warning. That would be much more difficult to do on television, naturally.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: Yes, I quite agree, and I accept that. I think that the classification is pretty good, though I am bound to say that there are a lot of young people to-day who are a good deal more sophisticated than I think probably either he is or I am even yet. But I quite agree with what he says on that. But probably there is—I do not think he will deny this—as much violence and crime and sex on the films as there is on television.
The most common criticism, and one that has certainly to be fairly met on television, is that there is too much violence. Frankly, I think the amount is exaggerated, but it is there. It is not confined to Independent Television. The B.B.C. stand in the same condemnation. Whichever it is, violence which is excessive ought to be corrected. I would say that it is more important to take particular care about this on television, because of the large and varied audience, than in the theatre. I do not know whether it is as important in the cinema, because I would agree that the "A" and "X" certificates make a difference. But let us have a sense of proportion both about the extent of the mischief and about what we mean by violence.
I must say that I agree wholeheartedly with all that was said by my noble friend Lord St. Oswald late last night. I hope that noble Lords who did not have an opportunity of hearing him—and there was a pretty thin House at a quarter paster eleven—will take the opportunity of reading it. I found his researches very informative and thought his boyhood recollections were agreeable. But what do we mean by violence? There are some critics who would say that they would cut out Titus Andronicus. I should not mind that, because I happen to think that it was probably the one bad play Shakespeare ever wrote.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Pericles is much worse.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I will give my noble friend Pericles, too; but I agree with him, that if we are going to take this on mere violence, it would rule out Macbeth, and I should object to that very strongly. It would also rule out the presentation of a great many grand stories. When we were young, we all read Dumas, Henty and Rider Haggard: We read such books as Lorna Doone and
784
Treasure Island, to say nothing of Scott, whom perhaps we were more compelled to read. There is a lot of violence there. When we were young, we all played cowboys and Red Indians, amateur prototypes of what are now called Westerns.
When we were young, crime stories were not nearly so common and popular as they are to-day; but, if crime is to be banned, we ought to censor the thriller "whodunits" and suppress Agatha Christie's plays. I would add that whenever I see a crime play on television (though I am not so regular a viewer as I ought to be, because I am rather fond of patronising films) the criminal always loses out. It is not at all like some of the older criminals we remember—for instance. Raffles. How Gerald du Maurier charmed us with his presentation of this gangster, who was perfectly charming and always got away with it! That does not happen to-day. In the two best crime series I have seen—"Maigret", on the B.B.C. and "No Hiding Place", on I.T.V.—the criminal never gets away and never scores a single point. Both these presentations are of absorbing interest, admirably done, and a wonderful advertisement for the police forces of two countries.
So, if I may say so, let us avoid arrogance in decision and, as Sir Harry Pilkington advises, be humble and positive—though I am bound to say that I think that in the Report those qualities are sometimes more honoured in the breach than in the observance. Let us have a sense of proportion and a feeling for liberty. I should be the last person to say that television, either I.T.V. or B.B.C, is perfect. But, I would add, in passing, do not let us forget that people are not compelled to look at one or the other As my noble friend the Leader of the House said, there is that useful little instrument, the knob, which one can turn from one programme to another, or even, if the worse come to the worst, turn off.
But both the B.B.C. and I.T.V. have produced and are producing a lot of very good stuff. I think that the majority of people would say, as my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale said last night, that the B.B.C. have been greatly improved by the competition of the I.T.V., but I cannot understand the argument that the B.B.C. are

785
compelled to alter their programmes because the I.T.V. put something on. The B.B.C. are in the fortunate position of getting their revenue, and the whole of their revenue, whatever they put on, and I cannot for the life of me see where this species of compulsion comes in. So let us avoid false arguments. The B.B.C. may follow I.T.V., and no doubt have done it often, because they know that I.T.V. was giving a better or a novel programme, which they thought it better to try to beat. I think that that is a good thing.
Both B.B.C. and I.T.V. present excellent news and current affairs programmes. I.T.V. certainly do. They send 30 of these programmes of daily news out to 30 different countries every day. It costs them a good deal of money to do it, but I believe they can afford it. There is "Panorama"; while I.T.V.'s "This Week" is often in the "top ten"—I may explain that the "top ten" are the ten most popular programmes, not the élite or the fashionable. Both bodies are certainly doing good and varied educational programmes, in which I.T.V. were the Dioneers and, as the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester said yesterday, both have greatly improved their religious programmes. The right reverend Prelate paid what I think was a deserved tribute to I.T.V. If I may add one example, their Laudes Evangeli was one of the most remarkable productions I have ever seen, unsurpassed in reverence and beauty, and I would hope that it might be reproduced every Good Friday, like Bach's Passion music.
Both bodies, too, have discovered and encouraged new talent and new writers. Pinter, now such a popular playwright on both sides of the Atlantic, got his first chance with Independent Television. Both the B.B.C. and I.T.V. have dramatised classical English writers. What is interesting is that this has created a wider demand for books. People say that I.T.V. or television stopped people from reading books. I believe that to be quite untrue. I was told some time ago by the chairman of the library committee of one of the largest county councils that when there had been a play by a classical writer on television they found that almost immediately there was a greatly increased demand in the public libraries
786
for the books of that author-Thackeray, Dickens, or whoever it might be. He said that the same thing applied when foreign scenes were shown: that there were inquiries for books about the particular country. This is what I mean by having a sense of proportion.
We are traditionally and by nature a practical people, and my prescription would be the practical one of carrying on what has, on the whole, proved good and successful, while trying to correct faults and make it better. The noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House posed a number of questions yesterday and invited us to give him answers. I feel sure that, whatever is the right solution, the Pilkington Committee's recommendation to vest everything in a single I.T.A. monopoly is wrong. It is not just that it would reverse the whole policy of the Act of 1954, which set up a number of programme companies to be selected by I.T.A. and under their general supervision; but I believe that such a plan would stereotype uniformity and stifle initiative, variety and competition, which are essential to progress and popularity.
I believe also (and this was a particular point put by the Leader of the House) that it would prove unworkable in practice. I am sure that anyone with any knowledge of all that is involved in the making of a programme—the continuous contact between the director, author, producer, actors and technicians—would agree that the Committee's proposals for divorcing programme planning from programme producing is hopelessly impracticable. The responsibility must be continuous from the inception to the conclusion of any project, as indeed it must be in any enterprise of any kind. I feel that if you were to limit programme companies to making programmes to order or on spec, and vested the responsibility for planning, ordering and presentation in the I.T.A., it would deprive the companies of responsibility for quality and initiative and vest those duties in a remote I.T.A., which could not do it. Remote control may be very effective with guided missiles, but I do not believe that it would work with television; and I doubt whether any company would be willing to attempt it.
Therefore, my Lords, I think the Government are profoundly wise when

787
they say in the White Paper that they must be satisfied that any new structure would remedy defects it was designed to overcome and would not throw up equally serious difficulties of its own and deprive the system of those features for which it can fairly claim credit. I believe that this plan of Sir Harry Pilkington's would give us the worst of both worlds. Your Lordships will note that the Committee do not suggest any such dyarchy or divorce for the B.B.C.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for allowing me to intervene, especially as I have to go out for an appointment almost immediately. I appreciate what he bas said, but has he taken into account that the B.B.C. do all this planning, the producing of plays, films and so on?—and they do it pretty wall. There are competitive groups within the B.B.C. organisation. If it can be done there, is it not possible that I.T.V. can produce some, and consult with the programme companies about the production of others?
THE EARL OF SWINTON: No. With respect, the noble Lord has emphasised the very point I was making. The B.B.C. are responsible for both the planning of the programmes and the making of the programmes. I do not say that you could not set up another monopoly in the I.T.A.—you could—which was responsible for the whole of that, instead of having a large number of programme contractors, with the I.T.A. in broad control. My whole point is that what you cannot do is to have the I.T.A. planning the thing and the other people carrying it out. It has either to be the B.B.C. system, which is complete control of the project, or it bas to be what we have to-day. That is why I say—and the noble Lord has really borne out my argument—the Pilkington Plan would not work. So much for that.
There is one other matter with which I want to deal. For my part, I do not quarrel with the Government's decision to give a third channel to the B.B.C provided it is genuinely a third channel designed to serve special and minority tastes. To create a third channel which was merely a repetition and competitor of the other two would, as I see it,
788
defeat the whole object and meet none of the criticisms. That would put three channels in competition for a mass audience and would reduce the level and balance which the Committee say they want to improve. This third channel, as I say, is rightly given to the B.B.C. It could be used to increase and enlarge the educational features, though I fully agree that those should still (because there has to be insidious as well as just instructive education) continue to be figured in the main programmes.
I do not see why the Independent Television companies, which have done such admirable educational work, and whose educational programmes are used in many countries outside the United Kingdom, should not co-operate with the B.B.C. on the third channel. This would mobilise large forces of experience, both in juvenile and adult education (incidentally, the cost has come up; the noble Lord was so interested in trying to find how the B.B.C. could be helped) and it would greatly reduce the cost to the B.B.C. of this third channel and make a considerable inroad into the profits of the Independent Television companies. What interests me particularly is that the idea of such a partnership was proposed in evidence by the Council of Churches to the Pilkington Committee. In their Report the Committee turned this proposal down on the ground, as they say, that it was impracticable. But I cannot find any evidence to show why they say it is impracticable, other than that the B.B.C. stated that they did not like it.
Again, to come back to Sir Harry Pilkington. Let us avoid arrogance in our decisions. I hope I have been constructive in my suggestions—I have tried to be—and put a fair sense of proportion and balance into the account and criticisms which I have made. I do not believe that any Government in their senses, least of all a Government, of whatever colour, on the eve of a General Election (whenever that should come) would incur the odium of destroying Independent Television, which has proved so popular with millions of people. To do that would not only be unpopular, but I believe it would be wrong. If the Government proceed as their White Paper encourages me to suppose is their aim, to correct such faults

789
as there are in a well-tried system, and to make what is good still better, then I think they will command the support of the great majority of the country, and may well achieve a policy which everybody can support, and give security, stability and success.
3.52 p.m.
LORD STRANG: My Lords, I ought to say at the outset that I am a member of the General Advisory Council of the B.B.C. I have taken part in television programmes for both the B.B.C. and the contracting companies, and I have seen them both in action. So far as my experience goes, I have nothing but praise for the way in which they both go about their business. But in what I am proposing to say this afternoon. I shall not attempt to pass personal judgment on the general run of television programmes from either source, or to assess their comparative merits or demerits, because my experience as a listener and a viewer does not run to that. But I shall, however, try to make a few observations of general scope.
In spite of the criticisms that have been levelled at the Pilkington Report, I still regard it as a responsible and persuasive document. The Report is in fact a major event in our national life; so also, I think, is the extraordinary reception which it has received, and so also will be the action which the Government will eventually decide to take upon it. In this phase of our national life we shall be presenting history with a characteristic picture, of one aspect, and an important aspect, of our society in the 'sixties. Now what has happened? Eleven people, covering a wide range of experience, have examined a vast mass of written and oral evidence of varying authority and value. They have reported on that evidence, and they have stated their unanimous conclusions, some of them farreaching. They have, as they themselves have said, approached their task empirically, with no general doctrine or preconceived principles, but with certainly a consciousness of the bearing of broadcasting, and particularly of television, upon the health of society.
In the course of their exposition they have touched upon some of the moral and social problems involved. It seems
790
to me all to the good that the Committee, unlike some other investigating committees, have not minced their words. They have spoken the truth as they saw it, and they have thrown the whole broadcasting problem open to public debate. By so doing, they have laid themselves open to criticism, both as to the character of their proposals and as to the assumptions upon which their recommendations have been framed. But in this way they have facilitated that process of government by discussion to which we in this country are still fortunately attached.
The remarkable range and intensity of the controversy which the Report has provoked highlights, I think, some important aspects of the present state of our national life. Some of the violent initial reactions from interested parties can be discounted. There was the newspaper headline which said:
"Pilkington tells the public to go to hell."
There was the programme company executive who said:
"The best place for this Report is the waste-paper basket."
Others, not all of them interested parties, have spoken of the Report as, "biased, reactionary and retrograde; marked by prejudice and malice; priggish; arrogant; stupid and grossly insulting to the public taste." A spokesman of the I.T.A. has since tried to bring the issue of class into the controversy. Sir Robert Fraser has spoken of the Report as being:
"motivated by a belief in a class élite of those who know best."
And, of course, the liberty of the subject has been widely called in aid, as it always is by those who want to exploit the weaknesses of the public for their own profit.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, for the sake of clarity may I ask whether he was in the House last night?
LORD STRANG: I was, my Lords.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I think the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, said that he wished to withdraw that statement, and that Sir Robert Fraser had not said that. Am I right?
LORD STRANG: I did not hear that. I am quoting from a statement in the Press, and if I am wrong I withdraw it.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: The statement that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, gave us had been wrongly reported, and the words were not "the élite". The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, then said he withdrew the statement.
LORD STRANG: I have taken my quotation from the Press, and if I have wrongly quoted—
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF TEH COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, is not here, I have in my hand what he actually said. He said [col. 636]:
"Since I made my speech I have seen the Director-General of the Independent Television Authority and he assures me that he did not use the words 'class élite' in connection with the Pilkington Report and that he was wrongly reported."
LORD STRANG: My Lords, I gladly withdraw what I have inadvertently said.
On the more serious level, the argument has revolved around two themes, the themes of competition and of the impact of television upon the public mind. As to competition, it is the critics of the Report rather than the Committee themselves who seem to be the doctrinaires. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, to whom I spoke yesterday, and to whose thoughtful speech we listened with great attention, is reported—and accurately, so he tells me—by the Committee as saying that:
"The first principle—that of competition in broadcasting—was fundamental ! the raising of standards was secondary to the fundamental principle. If it proved that standards declined as a result of competition, competition would nevertheless remain the fundamental principle."
That is a firm statement of doctrine. But, having nailed his colours to that particular mast, the noble Lord then went on to say something more. He said this very directly:
"Proper competition had not been achieved; each of the programme contractors had a commercial monopoly in its own area. 'We want to see competition in those areas, and we do not think we have got competition yet'."
792
That is in fact what the Committee themselves have said, and I will quote from the Report:
"Between the commercial companies to which the franchises have been given there is little or no competition in the provision of programmes, so that the intentions of Parliament and of the Authority have been frustrated."
It is precisely in order to secure such competition that the Committee have proposed their organic changes in the relationship between the Authority and the companies. The Committee are not against competition; indeed, it is the central theme of their recommendations that they:
"seek to ensure the greatest possible freedom to broaden the range of subject matter available to viewers and listeners."
They include within that range programmes
" designed to amuse and relax no less than those that are demanding."
There is, I think, more to be said for this main proposal of the Committee than most commentators seem to recognise. But some of them take a more favourable view and as one of them—and he is one of the best informed—put it—I quote from him:
"It seems to me that for all its priggish tone the Pilkington proposal might at least elevate the creative people above the moneybags and, by encouraging competition to produce better television rather than sell more advertising time, might usher in a genuine contest of talents."
Let us hope that the Government will not too readily dose their mind to the possible merits from this point of view of the proposals which the Committee have made. Let them by all means try to find answers to all the searching questions which the noble Viscount the Leader of the House put yesterday. But until they have found those answers let them keep an open mind.
Indeed, the surprising thing, it seems to me, is that for all the violence of their language, many of the critics are so often, in substance, at one with the Committee. One of the fiercest of these critics admits that the great networking companies
" by the use of their power have made themselves intolerable to a free country".
My Lords, I do not think the Committee said anything as strong as that.

793
There is also a wide consensus of view that the commercial profits are excessive, that quality should be improved, that viewers should have a maximum choice of programmes, and that the material presented should cover a wide range of themes and levels, and, accordingly, that the system of independent television needs drastic reform.
What the serious critics differed about was not so much what needs to be done but how to do it; not so much the substance of the Committee's proposals as the ideas which lie behind them. It is one of those underlying ideas which has provoked a chorus of abuse. The Committee have had the imprudence, I might almost say the temerity, to concern themselves with the moral aspect of broadcasting. They say that their working assumption—it is no more than that—must be that television in particular Will be a potent, or a main, factor in influencing the values and moral standards of our society. The extent of the impact of television upon the minds of viewers, and thus upon society as a whole, must, in the absence of conclusive research, be a matter for argument, but the plain fact that advertisers are willing to pay fantastic sums in order to get at the minds of viewers would argue that such an impact must prima facie be considerable. I cannot find that the Committee go further than this. I do not think as has been alleged, they hold that television alone can mould society.
It is, I would think, a credit to the Committee that they have not hesitated to emphasise the moral aspect of this problem and it is of significance to note that it is perhaps this for which they have been most strongly ridiculed. There is an inquest going on (these days into (the question, "What is wrong with Britain?" There are all kinds of answers to that question, but one of the counts against our society, among many others, is the lack of united, serious, responsible purpose. This may or may not be so, but however that may be, the Pilkington Committee come down on the side of this purpose, and they have been widely satirised for so doing. Goering is reputed to have said that when he heard the word "culture" he reached for his revolver. It is a melancholy sign of our own times that concern for the moral basis of society is too apt to be met with
794
scorn and derision by so many of those with access to our organs of publicity.
It is fervently to be hoped that, whatever Government it is that may take final action on the Report, they will not be blind to this plea by the Committee. It is all the more encouraging therefore to read some remarks by a Conservative Member of Parliament, and one who has since become a member of the Cabinet. This is what he said in the Sunday Telegraph:
"Competition has its virtues. Some Tories are aware of a widespread feeling, which Pilkington will certainly inflame, that after a decade of Conservative Government other virtues, such as public responsibility, are not flourishing."
He added:
"I share that view."
And he went on:
"In the 1950s they made freedom the goal. They have now to apply their minds more keenly than hitherto to its social implications."
I like to think that that is true Conservative doctrine. I am fortified in that belief by the most admirable speech of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, especially when he said—and I quote [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 242 (No. 106), col. 609]:
"Despite a belief in freedom I also think that no responsible Government can wholly wash its hands of anything touching our standards of taste and behaviour."
I am the more fortified by the fact that those words have just been endorsed by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton.
So to the White Paper, which is more specifically the subject of this debate. It is natural that when committees report, Governments and Oppositions both look narrowly at their recommendations. These must be subjected to the test of practical politics. Political Parties and Governments have their doctrines and their electoral considerations, and in the light of these I have no complaint about the White Paper, so far as it goes, and I can certainly support it. But it raises one big question, on which I should like to say a brief word. Speaking on the question of finance, it says, rather cryptically:
"The Government accepts its responsibility to see that the B.B.C. can secure sufficient income to finance adequate services."
I strongly endorse the plea that has already been made by several noble Lords, that the present system should be

795
maintained under which the programmes of the B.B.C. are financed out of the payments made by the members of the public for their receiving licences. Any other system, whether by way of Parliamentary grant annually negotiated, or by borrowing on a major scale for current expenditure, or by way of introduction of commercial advertising in any of the B.B.C. services as a source of income, would either adversely affect the financial security, freedom and independence of the Corporation, or alter the character of the Corporation or the balance of its services. What the fee would need to be is not yet clear. It may be, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said, that if the B.B.C. do not need to embark on local sound broadcasting and do not have to find additional hours for television except for educational purposes, they might get by with less than the £6 per annum which has been mentioned. Starting in 1963 instead of 1964 they might make do for a time with £5 10s., or £5; or even, for a shorter time, with the present £4; provided that they get the whole proceeds of the licence. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has gone into this matter in some detail and I will not follow him except to say that I am in general agreement with him.
But however electorally difficult it may be thought to be to ask viewing households to pay rather more than at present, even perhaps up to the £6 a year—that is, 4d. a day—as a combined fee for sound and television, it is to be hoped that Governments will not now, after all these years, by changing its financial basis, destroy the structure upon which the B.B.C. has been so successfully built, and impair the accumulated prestige of an institution which is unique in the world.
4.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I must first declare an interest in this matter, indeed two interests; as conflicting interests perhaps they may be regarded as cancelling themselves out. As director of a newspaper I naturally find the competition of television in attracting advertisements a considerable danger on the one side; on the other side, I am a lowly shareholder in T.W.W. I went into that only because the noble Earl, Lord Derby, had been extremely kind to me in giving me nominations to his stallions.
796
It was at a time when independent television was losing two or three million pounds a year, and when I put some money into that I never thought I would see a penny of it back. But as so often one has invested money expecting to make money and has lost it, it is rather nice expecting to lose it and then to make it.
Having said that, I want to say first what the noble Lord, Lord Strang, has said about the Pilkington Committee. I do not think the critics of the Committee, which includes a distinguished cousin of mine, regard the people themselves as in any way wrongful people, but they perhaps did not have in their body either the most distinguished people in public life, on the one hand, or the representatives of the ordinary viewer, on the other, two-thirds of whom seem to prefer I.T.V., advertisements and all, to the B.B.C. That is the only criticism one might make. It is a criticism not of the Committee but the Postmaster General who selected them.
The Leader of the House said how thin-skinned under certain criticisms had been the people concerned with I.T.V. Really, I thought the Leader of the House was a more doughty and hardened controversialist than that. Nothing has been said by the defenders of I.T.V. which compares with the outburst which our noble friend, Lord Reith, has made on this subject. The strength of language has not been all on one side. One thing, at least, has been shown: We have destroyed this popular idea that all diplomats are like Having heard the completely conflicting views of two former Permanent Under-Secretaries of the Foreign Office, we realise how live and diverse an institution it is.
It seems to be a complaint against Independent Television that it makes too much profit. The idea is absurd. The idea seems to be that all the profits go to the shareholders. Of course nothing of the sort happens. Two-thirds of the profits go to the Government, in profits tax, income tax and surtax; eventually a good deal goes in death duties. Surely it is better to have an institution making profits, putting enormous sums of money into the Exchequer, than to have these other boards, now joined by B.O.A.C, costing the taxpayer millions of pounds every year. In any case, I say regretfully as a shareholder, the golden days

797
are gone. For one thing the whole climate of business is tending to change. There will be, we hope, greater competition when there is a fourth programme, and therefore there will not be so many advertisers seeking so few channels. Then we all hope that, while it was necessary at the beginning that the local companies should use these network programmes for sheer lack in this country of experienced creative and and technical personnel, now after ten years the Government will lay it down that in future at least 50 per cent. of local programmes should be made by these local companies; which will mean, naturally, that the expenses of the local companies will be much higher and their profits correspondingly diminished.
A great many of the mistakes on the subject come from thinking that there was a great campaign in favour of commercial! television to make money, which was the crucial factor. It was not. Long before I had the slightest interest in I.T.V. I was a Member of another place and of this House and tried to cast my vote independently. The dominant factor to the people of my generation in the Conservative Party was that we were fed up with the B.B.C. monopoly. During the war the B.B.C. had had" its chance to be a really national institution. In fact it had taken a general Leftward tendency, a general pink tendency. Those of us doing our duty overseas felt it was rather hard that continually the B.B.C. was putting out this general idea of turning our back on the Britain of the past, turning to something completely new, which we constantly heard. They chose as Conservative speakers sometimes people who were not good representatives; even on the Brains Trust one person who might be a Conservative was more a figure of fun than a serioue figure. Their epilogues continually had this strong pink tendency.
When this matter was investigated quietly, as it was, it was found on investigation—quiet, subterranean investigation—that the staff of the B.B.C. were predominantly Socialist; their reactions after the elections to the few Conservatives in the B.B.C. made it quite clear that they had a complete bias in what they did. Eventually this was shown: In 1947, in one month there were 32 speakers who were either speaking on
798
political subjects or were politicians; of those 28 were Socialists, two were Liberals, and two were non-parity. The names were carefully collected by a Conservative representative and the B.B.C. was not able to deny it. That showed how very much the monopoly produced a general Left tendency.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I must say this is very astonishing. We did not hear so much about these particular aspects in the debates of 1952 and 1953. May I say that my experience of the B.B.C. is this: in my 40-odd years of public life I have had one debate on B.B.C. sound, which was with the noble Earl, Lord Woolton. I remember it well; it was a very long time ago. I just cannot believe that this general tendency actually existed. And if it did the people of this turn of mind bring no reflection on the other members of my Party, who were as good overseas as the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: Entirely: We know that is true of everybody overseas, of whatever Party. There is no reflection; anybody can do his duty. One was saying only that during this period, when members of both Parties were doing their duty as best they could, there was this general Leftward tendency in the B.B.C. Then they came back afterwards and it was thought a good idea that the Conservatives should appoint a liaison officer. They appointed somebody who had a distinguished war service record, now a member of the Government, the Secretary of State for War.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: We are learning.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I am glad to have the pleasure of being able to teach the noble Viscount, who has given me so many lessons in the past.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Although I have not come into this debate, I have already had one good lesson from Professor Wilson on pressure groups. I feel quite enough horror about the whole thing to want to debate with the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: All I am trying to say is that the picture that Professor Wilson painted was entirely inaccurate. People like myself are not in the slightest influenced by the pressure groups mentioned. I think we are all sophisticated enough to know the pressure of a pressure group when it is applied to us, and one discounts it. We had enough integrity and intelligence to make up our own minds, even if we made them up in a way which the noble Viscount disagreed with. I hope that he will not attack us on that. The ordinary Back Bencher made his mind. When this liaison officer was appointed the treatment he received from the then Director General of the B.B.C. in warning his subordinates not to have too much to do with him—he did not even ask him for a meal and a talk—showed us that there was a strain of arrogance that had got into the B.B.C. which was intolerable. Nobody should feel stronger on this subject of a monopoly of opinion than the Socialist Party. At the moment there is every danger that the Daily Herald is in a bad way. What could be worse than only Conservative newspapers, and the Socialist Party without a proper organ of daily public opinion? Can you imagine what would happen if the Daily Herald went to the wall? How lamentable it would be if only one political view were put predominantly before the public!
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, may I just intervene to ask the noble Viscount one thing? am not quite sure what he is getting at. Is he suggesting that the B.B.C. selected its personnel on the ground of their politics and therefore that was a bad thing; or is he, alternatively, suggesting that they should have selected them on the ground of their politics and got the balance rather more equal?
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I think the important thing is that the B.B.C. should keep an equal balance, and should employ such people as will ensure that there is an equal balance, both in what they put out and roughly in the personnel inside. I say no more than that.
LORD WALSTON: I apologise for interrupting again, but, surely, would that not mean that there would have to be some political questionnaire put out before anybody was taken on by the
800
B.B.C. in order to ensure that that balance was maintained?
VISCOUNT ASTOR: No; it would require a certain amount of common sense—no more than that. Any body running something which is a great organ of opinion know pretty well that they are trying to keep a balance. That is a normal matter of common sense.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, would the noble Viscount excuse me for one moment? I feel I must speak now because I was a member of the B.B.C. Appointments Department at one time and certainly the facts were that we never took into consideration a person's Politics when offering him a job in the Corporation. I think that is a reasonable way to interview a candidate. I would think it wrong to inquire after his politics.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I am not disputing that. I am merely saying that the result of those years was that there was at that time a general Leftward tendency in the B.B.C. which a great many younger members of the Conservative Party found intolerable. And we were never prepared to allow a monopoly in this medium by this type of public authority who tended to recruit this particular type of person. That was the reason. It was nothing to do with the pressure groups to make money. That was the fundamental fact which all of us who were there knew and which we did not want to see happening in the newspaper world. We all hope that Lord Shawcross's Committee will produce a Report which will make it certain that the Daily Herald and Left papers will continue as prosperous papers of high circulation, because it is right that in matters of opinion both sides should be heard and that there should not be any form of monopoly. We hope that it will be accepted that there are going to be these two different forms, the B.B.C. and the Independent Television.
Of course it is not quite certain that the B.B.C. have completely accepted this fact. If your Lordships look at the paragraph about the Central Religious Advisory Committee, at page 133 of the Pilkington Report, you will see that it says:
"The B.B.C. told us that when C.R.A.C. had served only the B.B.C, work with C.R.A.C.

801
had been close and collaborative. It had proceeded in an atmosphere of mutual trust. The Corporation had disclosed its perplexities and had made no concealment of its mistakes. The advisory body and the producers had worked very closely together as a team. Now that the meetings of the C.R.A.C. were attended by representatives of the Authority, the B.B.C. felt inhibited from discussing their plans for religious broadcasting as freely and openly as they had been used to."
How extraordinary, with something like religious broadcasting, where there should be collaboration and Christian unity, that the B.B.C. should say that they cannot sit down with the representatives of the Authority and the representatives of the Churches without embarrassment. It shows a most extraordinary attitutde of mind, in my humble submission. It is that attitude of mind which has made people worry, because I think that the Pilkington Committee have taken a rather naïve view of human nature.
Is it their idea that people are moved only by the lowest motives, that people in businesses which make money are interested only in making money? Are we really to believe that Lord Nuffield, when he made cars, was interested only in making the maximum amount of money and not providing good cars? Are we to believe that Sir Harry Pilkington himself when he makes glass, is only trying to provide a cheap and meretricious design that will break quickly and have to be replaced? Not at all! I am sure that he tries to provide a glass of good design and solid durability. Equally, can people really believe that people of character—for instance, my noble friend Lord Derby a worthy son and grandson of great statesmen who served this country well, in peace and in war, and who does an immense amount of public work—have as their only motive the making of money? We have only to look at the people who are directors of these television companies, those whom we know in this House, and others outside, such as Sir Philip Walter, Lord Townshend, Sir Edwin Herbert, Sir Hector Hetherington, Lord Daly-rymple. Lord Forbes, Mr. Tom Williams, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, Lord Nether-thorpe, Lord Cornwallis, Sir Alexander Maxwell, Lord Layton. They are all people, I submit, of high character who are trying equally to render good service as well to accumulate the maximum profit.
802
There is not only the danger of making too much money, there is also the corrupting effect of anonymous and secret power. That is what people in a Government monopoly tend to have. I know; I have had it once myself in one time in my 'life. It has a most corrupting effect on the character. It is only when there is competition that you do not get these people with their little empires, and with their small and corrupting power which is, I think, a great danger to the human character. Now we have been told that the Church has been wrong for years. It is not breaking the Ten Commandments and committing the seven deadly sins which we have all tried to avoid as best we can, but it is triviality which is the great danger to the soul. They have turned out to be dogmatic theologians, Who have quoted somebody and then wisely refrained from saying whom they were quoting.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I still prefer my John Ruskin:
"Competition is death; only co-operation is life."
VISCOUNT ASTOR: As he is a representative of the Co-operative Society, no doubt those are the noble Viscount's views, and I respect them; but equally he must respect mine.
I turn now to the present situation. Independent Television is young; it has had hardly eight years' run. It had to start from scratch, to collect talent, to gain experience, to get technicans. It undoubtedly has made many mistakes, as the B.B.C. and others have made mistakes in their time. The point now is to correct those mistakes. Undoubtedly there has been a certain personality clash between the Authority and the Pilkington Committee. But members of the Authority will change, even as members of the B.B.C. change, and you will get different people correcting the mistakes of the past. What we want is to keep this lively competition between commercial television and the B.B.C, but we should strengthen the Authority, strengthen the control over any faults that may exist, prune anything that has gone wrong in the matter of advertisements allowed. But we have created something which is live, and young and vigorous, which has the possibilities of growth.
5.33 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I feel your Lordships will agree that, however charmingly the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, put his points, in much of what he said he has done a disservice to television, whether it comes under the aegis of the B.B.C. or the I.T.V. In my view, the idea that either the B.B.C. or commercial television should be concerned about the political opinions of their staffs is as distasteful as——
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I have not suggested that at all. All I suggested was that one had to be sure that what was being put out was a balanced programme; and, if it was not balanced, as it was not in the latter days of the war, it shows that it was not doing a proper job.
LORD STONHAM: I would suggest to the noble Viscount that to-morrow he reads just what he did say. I was carefully listening to every word; and, indeed, in his reply, or failure to reply, to the point which was very cogently put to him by my noble friend Lord Walston, it was perfectly obvious that in order to satisfy the noble Viscount about the political content or slant of programmes, the B.B.C. or I.T.V. would have to conduct a political witch-hunt to determine the views of their employees. I should think noble Lords in all parts of the House would agree that that would be just as distasteful as conducting an inquiry to ascertain whether they were Catholics or Jehovah's Witnesses. I assure the noble Viscount, from my own experience, that it is absolutely absurd to allege that there is this Left-wing, "pale pink" tendency in the B.B.C.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: There was.
LORD STONHAM: Well, I have had experience, as he knows, as a Member of another place, and I can assure him of the difficulty I used to have in assuring my own fervent supporters in the Labour Party, in the constituency and in the South-West of England, particularly over programmes like "Any Questions?" that all the B.B.C. staff were not rabid Conservatives. I am quite sure we have all had that kind of experience. Indeed, I would say it would be just as untrue to suggest for example—though the noble Lord did not suggest this—that I.T.V. programmes had
804
a sort of Tory taint. I do not believe that the question of Party politics enters into it at all with either programme, and I know that in both cases they go to the greatest possible length to ensure——
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, that is my point. I am trying to say that when there is competition you get a fair balance in both mediums, which you did not have when you had a monopoly.
LORD STONHAM: I am saying on this point that both organisations go to the greatest possible length to ensure that there should be that fair balance on just the questions of which the noble Viscount was complaining. That is the only point which I wish to take up with the noble Viscount, because I have imposed on myself a time limit to which I should like to adhere.
I would say at once that, like the noble and learned Viscount who opened this debate, I opposed the introduction of commercial television in 1954. But to-day, I am aware, as he is, that no practical politician believes that I.T.A. can be destroyed; nor, whatever one might wish, is it possible to disclaim revenue from advertisements as the main source of revenue on some, at least, of our T.V. channels. I believe that the overwhelming majority of viewers in this country support the plea in the White Paper for the abandonment of doctrinaire and extreme positions. I would say that there have been less extreme positions taken up in this debate than I thought might have been the case. I think that our people wish us to build an enlarged and improved service on the present part public, part independent framework. My own views on most of the controversial points were expressed in two speeches: three parts Hailsham, and one part Francis-Williams. I do not know whether that is an unusual combination, but that is exactly how I feel about it. I say that to make my own position clear, and I hope to avoid saying anything that has been previously said in this debate; though I must confess that after some thirty speeches it is very difficult to find a stone that has not been turned.
One important subject that Lord Hailsham did not even mention was sound broadcasting. He said, with our full agreement, that no Government

805
could wash their hands in matters of taste and behaviour. In my view, that must involve spending, actually and relatively, a lot more thought, money and effort on sound radio. I know that viewers greatly outnumber listeners, but I very much doubt that in its effect on thought sight outdistances sound. Like Pilkington, my evidence, though not scientific, is not to be ignored. The other day I was watching a very good, short T.V. programme in which a wise and witty professional was dealing, on vision, with listeners' letters, but he confessed mournfully that his own fanmail was very light, confined mostly to women who admired, not his wit, but his tie.
The other week T myself came home after a television discussion, and my wife commended my part in it. Quite innocently, I said, "What was it I said that you liked?". She replied, "Oh, no one remembers what anyone said, but you looked comfortable." Remarks of that kind give one an insight into what people think about what is said, as it were, on the television screen. On the other hand, I have done discussions on little programmes like the Third Programme and have received many letters and messages—ten times as many as after a television programme. The fact is that people listen. They listen in factories, in shops, on car radios, on transistors and in the kitchen, but they do listen and it seems to stick more. I think we should make a big mistake if, even in a comparative sense, we neglected this medium.
I know that the White Paper approves the B.B.C.'s intention to extend the hours and, presumably, the scope of the Third and Light programmes, but in my view their rejection of the Pilkington recommendation for a sustained and broadly-based trial of local sound broadcasting is a sad and short-sighted error. I know there has been great pressure for local commercial stations from people who perhaps hope to repeat in sound the great profits that they made in vision, but surely that is no reason for denying the B.B.C. the chance to develop local sound.
I mentioned this point at some length in the broadcasting debate which we had in March of last year, and that the B.B.C. were then ready to start at once, and had plans to provide within five years 80 or 90 local stations each with a live-mile
806
radius. The capital cost of each would be £20,000, and they would each cost something like £30,000 a year to run. That is pennies, my Lords, compared with the comparable cost of television. It would be, in effect, a fourth sound programme providing good broadcasting which, as it were, grew out of the life of the local community around it, something that was intimately in touch with people's lives: local sport, weather, traffic problems, social activities, local church services, programmes for young people—a great deal of it on the "Do it yourself" principle—and all the questions, including local politics, which come close home and arouse the strongest interest. I think that that, done impartially as the B.B.C. would do it, would help, not harm, the local newspapers. I am very much concerned about their future continuance, and I should not willingly advocate anything which I felt would unfairly affect them. I do not think it is true, as the White Paper suggests, that there is no evidence of local demand. I think the demand is there, and I trust the B.B.C. will be given the chance to satisfy it.
I should now like to refer, quite briefly I hope, to some of the Committee's more controversial recommendations. At the beginning of their Report they point out that it was not possible under their terms of reference to suggest the closing down of commercial T.V., but in my own view the suggestion that all advertisements should be handled by I.T.A. would have precisely that effect of closing down commercial television. Moreover—and I do not want to go into detail on this—the suggestion is quite impracticable. I.T.A., my Lords, is apparently not very well equipped, according to this debate, to do the job it is already supposed to do, and I am certain that it is not equipped at all to act either as a programme company or an advertising agency. I think the series of searching questions which were put yesterday by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, make that point very clear and reveal the snags.
There is one other point which was not made under this head, and it is this. If the Pilkington Committee's suggestion is implemented, then in I.T.A. we shall have, in effect, a State corporation carrying advertising. There would then be no logical argument against the B.B.C.'s

807
carrying advertising, and giving the public television without charging a licence fee. I do not think anyone could support that proposition; nor do I think that the public as a whole would support the alternative, which came out as a result of an exchange between the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, that we should have another corporation—call it the National Broadcasting Corporation, if you like—which would also be supported by licence revenue and have no advertisements. So I cannot see that the Committee's proposal is a starter at all.
I think, too, that the Government in the White Paper have been much too coy about the financing of the second B.B.C. channel, and I most firmly support Lord Shepherd's suggestion of a £5 licence fee, which, according to the figures he so carefully explained, would mean that viewers would pay an extra 5d. a week and the Treasury would relinquish the £12 million which they now retain out of the present £4 licence. I support those noble Lords who have said that we must have a much firmer basis for the finances of the B.B.C, and if the money is coming from licences and it is all going to the B.B.C, that will be a firm basis. I think it is much better than the suggestion which has been made in some speeches, that the money should come from I.T.A.
My Lords, it is beyond question that a comparatively small number of people have made vast profits from commercial television, and some of them have been pretty cynical about it. Many of them—perhaps not in whole, but in part—have cashed in, and the companies are now owned by a much larger army of investors, thousands of them, who this year we understand will share total profits of some £28 million before tax. But there are signs that the Klondyke days are over, or at least numbered, and I think, we are all agreed that that should be so. But if that is so, and if, as has been suggested, the commercial companies should be required to pay a higher rent, as with profits at their present level it would seem they could, the sum so obtained is not likely to be anything like sufficient for the B.B.C's requirements, quite apart from the suggestion that if such money goes into the
808
Treasury it is by no means certain that it will eventually accrue to the B.B.C. Certainly, the licence way is the best way.
I suggest, although we do not know the date—I do not think anybody knows the date—that if and when there is a second commercial channel, these financial questions must be settled before any firm arrangements are made about a second independent programme. I trust, also, that we shall ensure that in every area there will be a genuine choice of programmes for the viewer. This brings in a point which was made by my noble friend Lord Shepherd, when he suggested that there should also be something like control of the prices charged for advertising space. I cannot remember his exact words, but I know that was in his mind. I suggest that if we make quite sure that we end the position where to-day, for example, one company has a monopoly for five days of the week, and a monopoly over another area for two different days, say a week-end, and we have instead two companies each working a seven-day week so that the viewers have a genuine choice, then it would not only be very much better for the viewers but it would break the advertising monopoly which, it is sometimes alleged, and I think with justice, has led to overcharging for space. I think that would eventually be a much better way, than by the rather difficult job of controlling advertising rates.
My Lords, I believe that this debate has made clear that we are at one in our determination that broadcasting snail be used to uplift, entertain, educate and improve—we differ only over the method. But I think this is certain: you cannot convert people by preaching in an empty church, and you cannot influence them through an unviewed screen. The people will look only at what they want to see; and, as has been said by many speakers, many serious commercial programmes are deservedly popular. For myself, "Panorama" gives me my best look round the world, but it is also true that twice as many people see "This Week" and that the proportions of viewers are much the same as that with a number of other comparable programmes. It is for the experts to say why that is, but it is the public choice. I merely say that we need both, and that both should strive constantly to

809
improve. I think we are agreed that the White Paper provides a means for a greatly improved television and broadcasting service to the public, and, as such, it deserves our support.
4.52 p.m.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords, I count it a great privilege to be able to join in this debate, because it seems to me, curiously enough, only a few years ago that we had that acrimonious dispute about the introduction of commercial television. In my mind's eye, I can see the present Leader of the House sitting on that second Bench, making possibly the most provocative speech I have ever heard in my life. If I had bad a brick with me, I should have thrown it at him; and I also had a great dispute with my dear friend Lord Waverley, sitting next to me. Noble Lords differed violently on whether or not the B.B.C. should have a rival. But those days are over, and we have had experience of independent television. It is not so good, perhaps, as we thought it was going to be: It is not so bad as some people thought it was going to be.
My Lords, in a debate like this it is important, I think, that everybody should disclose his interests. I am a director of Electric and Musical Industries (usually known as E.M.I.) and I am very proud of it, too, because it was that great company which produced television. If it had not been for the great Sir Isaac Shoenberg, we should mot have bad television as we know it to-day; yet his name is not nearly so well-known as it should be. I should like to tell your Lordships what we do. Our interests are that we put up broadcasting stations, we make receivers, we make valves, we make T.V. cameras and equipment, and we are also the biggest manufacturers of gramophone records in the world. But we are not in any way financially interested in the programme companies. Having said that, I think I can continue, with noble Lords appreciating exactly bow I stand in this matter.
I should like to start by paying a great tribute to the Pilkington Committee. I have said, jokingly, that the Government were unable to see through the difficulties of a new television organisation so they brought in a glazier, with the
810
idea that they might be able to see through the problems a little better; to which a wag added: "It was better than leaving it to Chance". However, that is by the way. But I do not know how we are to persuade decent citizens of this country to serve on Committees, to spend an enormous amount of time digging into "he subject that is put before them if, at the end, having given the views which they believe to be right, they are to be met by a chorus of abuse up and down the country.
The members of the Pilkington Committee obviously did their duty. They must have been stuck before television, hour after hour, trying to judge the various programmes; and, as your Lordships know, in the end the effect and the maddening qualities of advertisements get you down. So I myself can well understand how, in the end, you would praise one system without advertisements and damn the other one. I have listened to such a degree to the various degrees of whiteness caused by detergents that in the summer I am convinced that snow is dark grey. That is the sort of effect that you find, and I can well understand this Committee coming down very enthusiastically on one side instead of the other. I rather regret, if I may say so, the fact that the Government, in their White Paper, have refused to permit "magazine" advertising. I cannot quite see the objection to that. After all, only the very rich firms can advertise during the peak hours, and if there were a magazine programme for a quarter of an hour the less wealthy firms would be able to come on to the air. In the immortal words of Mark Twain, "If you like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing you like"—and some people actually do like it. On the other hand, you can turn it off. In any event, such advertisements do not come in the middle of some thrilling story which you arc annoyed at having interrupted. I feel that that point might be considered again.
My Lords, I should like now to strike a rather different note from that of most speakers, and that is to speak about the technical side. When we re-started television after the war, I was a lone voice crying for the introduction of 625 lines: everybody else, expert and non-expert, was in favour of the 405 lines, which is

811
now shown to have been a mistake. I am delighted indeed that the Committee have given the lead to the Government in changing to the 625 lines, as indeed was recommended by the technical committee. In that connection, I hope that we shall be able to be standardised with the other countries of Europe; because, although 625 lines are 625 lines, there are many ways of doing it, and it would be a pity if the system were not standardised. I would ask here—and I hope—that the B.B.C. and I.T.A. will avoid duplication of research and development. There has been a great waste of money on this matter. If only they could make up their minds what they want, and then give a development contract to somebody, that would be a good thing; because, speaking from the point of view of the company of which I am a director, we find that the B.B.C. are rather inclined to do the easy jobs and to leave the difficult ones to the equipment manufacturers.
I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth about the plural system and the network. I think that that requires very much closer investigation than was given to it by the Pilkington Committee, and we need to be slow in making up our minds what to do. But I would say this: that if the Government are again to give a monopoly to the companies, the Treasury must look into the question and inspire legislation to prohibit any kind of interest by the programme companies, whether by shareholding or in any other way, in such activities as advertising agencies, broadcasting equipment businesses, record businesses, music publishing or show business. To quote one or two examples, A.T.V. have a 50 per cent, interest in Pye Records. British Electronics has broadcasting equipment and a record business, and a large interest in A.T.V. Members of the A.T.V. board publish music, and they are in the show business. I think this sort of thing is undesirable, because it must affect the placing of orders. With artistes, it must affect, for instance, whether their songs should be "plugged", or who should record them. I am not for one moment saying that anything unpleasant or undesirable has occurred; but the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has told us that he is going to curtail
812
the profits of the great companies, and if they cannot get their money from straight advertising I think there is a very real possibility that they may do their best to get it from the tied companies, which they can inspire with such business as to make them all a success. I hope that that question will be looked into, because I think it is something which should be studied.
Altogether, my Lords, the Pilkington Committee, in my opinion, did a grand job. I do not say that I agree with everything in their Report—certainly not. Nor do I accept everything in the Government's recommendations. On the whole, however, at this time, in consideration of this broad subject, I accept what both say. But I hope that in this very important job we shall "hurry slowly."
5.2 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: My Lords, this debate is proving something of an endurance test, both for those who speak and for those who listen; and had it not been for the fact that Mr. David Sheppard had boosted the morale of the church by getting a century at Lords, probably I should not have risked intervening in the debate at all. But it is now clear that the appearance of the Pilkington Report represents a milestone in the social history of our country, whether or not we accept all its detailed findings. We have to admit that for over a century, I should think, there has been a growing tradition in our country to avoid moral judgments wherever possible. In the courts, in public administration, in the Press, and I think even in the schools, there has been so much stress on the freedom of the individual to make his choice that there has been little willingness to admit that some choices are better than others.
After the Pilkington Report it will be, I think, more difficult for Governments to ignore or repudiate their responsibility in those realms of human life where moral attitudes are formed and developed. I am sure we all heard with appreciation the acceptance of that point by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. I feel that what he said will be not only appreciated but remembered, and doubtless used in evidence against any Government that tends to stray from that position. For it is now clear that

813
even in 1962 words like "right" and "good" still have a meaning, and they can be used without shame by men who are as far removed from Victorian or effeminate piety as Dr. Richard Hoggart or Mr. William Wright. We are forced by the Report to consider the moral effects of activities which must to some extent be nationally controlled.
Hawing said that—and I shall return to it in a few moments—I, like, I think, most other speakers, want to make my own little list of exceptions to my acceptance of the Pilkington Report. I think we are all very anxious to make it clear that we do not believe in the verbal inspiration of this document, which has its limitations and its exaggerations. And I do not think we need be too softhearted about the Pilkington Committee. They have not hesitated to hand out their good marks and their bad marks, and in this world I think you have to expect to be judged as you judge yourself.
I find the Report—and perhaps this, coming from these Benches, may surprise your Lordships—a little too grandmotherly in its tone and spirit. The Kingdom of England is not the Republic of Plato, and the nation as a whole will not, I think, hand over its cultural fate to any small group of guardians, even if they are dwelling in the most incorruptible corridors of Broadcasting House, or wherever else these things come from. A certain area of liberty and freedom must be left to the average man. I should have felt happier if more of the Committee's criticisms and plaudits had been admittedly based on their observations and impressions, rather than on the depositions of organisations which can easily represent vested interests of one kind or another. I personally do not think the Committee allow enough for that healthy common sense which I believe insulates many minds from the undue influence of the T.V. screen.
Quite a lot of violence which appears there is, I believe, soon forgotten as belonging to an unreal world. Incidentally, I think we all have to do a little more thinking about the place of violence in entertainment. There have been a number of excursions into this interesting subject in the Report, and in the debate in which we are now taking part, but I very much doubt whether we have reached the root of it yet, and I am quite
814
certain I have not. I have a vague feeling in my mind that to watch scenes of violence from places of safety has always had some morbid fascination for the human mind. After all, the story of David and Goliath has a fairly bloodthirsty ending, and this has somewhere to he fitted into the legitimate interests and amusements of men, but with due regard all the time to possible dangers and exaggerations. I am very struck by one sentence in the Report, where it is pointed out that if you repeat violent scenes too frequently, they cease to have their effect, and then people feel forced to make them still more sensational and sadistic, and hence more harmful.
Similarly, I believe that people have plenty of ways of insulating themselves from the exaggerated claims of advertisements. I think the Report is asking for the moon when it insists that advertisements must be strictly truthful. I ask myself whether there could be really such a thing as a strictly truthful advertisement that was compressed into a few seconds but still expected to have some effect. After all, you must allow a certain amount of exaggeration. The Report calls it conventional exaggeration, but it allows very little place for it. I think people know pretty well what is exaggeration and what is not. I remember once hearing a story of an advertising agent who was called upon to advertise some tinned salmon that was so pale that nobody would buy it. So he invented the slogan, "This salmon is guaranteed not to turn red in the tin". If people want to be taken in by that sort of thing, of course nothing we can do can help them; but I do not think that very many do. I think that I.T.V. could legitimately feel that they might have had a few more good marks here and there. My brother Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester spoke of the most reverend Primate's view of I.T.V. religious programmes, and I know that he has taken special steps to see that this point was not forgotten in this debate. He feels that they have produced a certain quality of freshness and imaginativeness in their programmes, for which he, at least, is very grateful. They seem to have tripped up rather badly in the Coventry programme, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd; but, of course,

815
like others, they are bound to make mistakes.
When all this has been said, we must admire the Committee for the courage with which they have grasped the nettle and stated their opinion that a good deal of the material which is flooding the homes of England night by night is unworhty, less than the best it might be—in their word, "trivial". I think that it is very difficult to reach an acceptable definition of "trivial", but perhaps it is a help to think of the opposite, which is greatness, Professor Whitehead used to say:
"Moral education is impossible without the habitual vision of greatness."
I expect that it would be rather wearing for all of us if we had greatness thrust upon us, in this sense, for every hour of every night. But to some extent, when we try to picture the total impact of our television programmes, I think that we have to say that a great deal is the reverse of what is great. And in this particular connection, I am afraid that I have to put what is commonly called "kitchen sink drama" in the centre of the picture.
Aristotle said:
"No lesson is so important to learn and no habit so important to acquire as a right judgment and a delight in fine characters and noble actions."
My Lords, does our television help in this direction? Only yesterday, I asked the headmaster of a big modern secondary school in Leicester what he thought about the total impact of television upon his boys. He said, in the first place, that they watched almost exclusively the I.T.V. programmes and that only few of the B.B.C. programmes made any appeal to them. He did not think that the violence had any particular effect in producing delinquency or violent actions on their part, but he did say that he had found it more difficult to develop higher standards of loyalty, of dress and of general behaviour in a school that was largely influenced by what the pupils were seeing, night after night, on television. If this is so, I think that we must admit that we have not yet found a way of seizing the great opportunity that is before us.
Burke once said that:
"Public life is a situation of power and energy; he trespasses against his duty who
816
sleeps upon his watch as well as he that goe6 over to the enemy."
What we have to ask, not only of the I.T.A., or even of the I.T.A. and the B.B.C, but of this whole society in which we all have our share, is: are we rising to this possibility that is put before us? Can we give our people a vision of greatness instead of a nightly vision of the sordid and sallacious?
There is one other point that I should like to mention in connection with our television programmes, although I do not think it is specifically mentioned in the Report, unless I have overlooked it. This is the danger we are in of encouraging our people to form important judgments on slick answers to still more slick questioners. This is a new technique that has come into our country. Obviously, we cannot entirely go back on it, as it has become part of our lives for the time being. I understand from what I have read, and to some extent from what I have seen, that there is competition between interviewers as to who can put the sharpest edge on the questions; and, of course, this can easily slip into something not far short of impertinence and rudeness. But, quite apart from that aspect, the cult of speed has to be looked at with some suspicion when it is being applied to far-reaching issues.
I remember once being coached for a television interview by a very friendly interviewer, who said "Now, Bishop, you lost 15 seconds there". Of course, 15 seconds is a long time for the millions who are waiting for the next pearl of wisdom, but 15 seconds is not very long to formulate an answer that (perhaps concerns the whole future of humanity. Somehow we have to train our people to distinguish between this particular gift of quick repartee and those qualities of true statesmanship and leadership, whether we are (thinking of the Church or of the State.
I should say a few words about the specifically religious programmes. I have been advised by the Church of England Council for Radio and Television that they think, on the whole, that it would be wise now to encourage the setting up of a separate Religious Advisory Council for I.T.A. It is something that, during the formative years, one Council has somehow managed to serve these

817
two bodies: the wolf has so far found it possible to dwell peaceably with the lamb, although apparently not without some slight embarrassment. Nevertheless, I do not think that we can expect this unnatural union to last for ever. With regard to this embarrassment, I do not think that it is an embarrassment born of mutual strife or dissension, but obviously if two organisations are both anxious to give the best, they cannot easily discuss their plans in front of one another without some kind of hesitancy. So I think that we might encourage this division of the Religious Advisory Council.
Those of us who occupy (these Benches particularity welcome paragraph 293 of the Report, which makes the point that the Christian character of the whole programme (I use that word "Christian" in a broad sense) cannot be decided entirely by the quality of the formal religious programme, but will be judged rather by the extent to Which a Christian outlook pervades the whole. Here, I think that we have to encourage all those who are in charge of these great agencies to take a highly responsible view of their responsibility. We do not usually quote texts from these Benches: We have mercy on your Lordships. But I did come across a Proverb of Solomon the other day which seemed to me might well serve as a motto for these agencies, for both sound and television.
"The hearing ear and the seeing eye,
The Lord hath made even both of them."
I think it is just a reminder that those who plan and produce what millions hear and see are carrying an immense and awesome responsibility. What we have to be careful about on television is the influence of people who are thought to be authoritative. I have in mind, in particular, doctors and scientists, whose authority has not yet gone the way of most other authorities. Those who represent the establishment—that is, the establishment in the non-ecclesiastical sense—do not count for very much at the moment, but there are still some spokesmen who speak for realms of life that have not yet been completely debunked, and I think scientists and doctors are among them. When people of this sort say things on television to indicate that the great moral tradition of
818
our country is now an entirely open question, that everybody is free to reconsider the most fundamental matters in human relations, that is far more damaging, in the long run, than any amount of blood and thunder.
I feel that the B.B.C. have deserved their reward, in the shape of the next available television channel. I think it would be a drastic step to reorganise the existing companies, which have been formed on the principle that they both sell advertising time and produce, and to reconstruct them so that they become purely producing companies. I wish to differ from the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester, who suggested that the personal fate of those concerned in this operation should be ignored by the Government. I believe that some thought would have to be given to whether this is a reasonable and fair surgical operation to attempt. My own view, if I had to give one, would be that if the B.B.C. had the next channel, then I.T.A. might have the fourth. The fourth channel might be organised from the start on this other basis, and then it could be seen whether or not it was possible for this third kind of technique to make a contribution to our broadcasting.
I would end with a word about local sound, only because I had a personal experience of it recently. I have just come back from an extensive tour of America and Canada in which I covered a great distance by car. We frequently turned on the radio, and it was interesting to me to find that as we drew near each new town we reached into a new programme, and on this new local programme, with all its local news, there would suddenly come an announcement of a sale at the local hardware shop, or something of that kind. To us, as strangers and visitors, this was rather amusing, almost comic. I do not think it would be an addition to the amenities of England to have this same experience. If we could do it without this complication, I am sure that it would be a good deal better. But the people in America and Canada seem to endure it without coming to any great harm. With those remarks, I will bring this speech to an end, with my gratitude to your Lordships for hearing me so patiently.
5.24 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think we have been most fortunate during this two-day debate, particularly in the two speeches which have been made by the right reverend Prelates, the Lord Bishop of Chichester and the Lord Bishop who has just resumed his seat. Both of them have shown a liberal spirit and a deep appreciation of the problems which we have to face; both speeches were filled with humour, and I must say they delighted me.
I hesitated very much before rising to address your Lordships to-day, because I felt that I had burdened the House too often with remarks about broadcasting and too often had to declare an interest as a director of one of the independent companies. I have none the less done so, because there are a few further points which I feel I should put quite briefly to your Lordships. I might say at the outset that I agree very generally with the kind of criticism that has been made of the Pilkington Report—for example, the leaders in the Daily Telegraph and in the Economist and the Statist, and particularly the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, in The Times two days ago. All in all, I must say that there seem to me to be many reasons why no Conservative Government could view with equanimity the proposals the Report makes with regard to the reorganisation of I.T.A., the implications of those proposals and their consequences if they were put into practice.
I should add, too, that the experience of a colleague and myself in regard to giving evidence before the Pilkington Committee (it was, in fact, on the subject of local sound radio) was not entirely satisfactory. We were told, first, that a summary of our written evidence would almost certainly be incorporated in their Report—this written evidence was carefully prepared—hut that no oral evidence would be published. Curiously enough, what happened was that virtually none of our written submissions came out in the Report, but only two extremely misleading and incomplete references to our verbal evidence; and these were lifted out of their context in order, I think, to prove a case against independent local radio stations. My friends and I have, of course, written to the Postmaster-
820
General on this point. But I believe there are other examples of an incomplete marshalling of evidence and a failure to weigh objectively the various arguments. I am sure that the members of the Pilkington Committee drafted their Report in the best of good faith, but it is not an immaculate Report from the technical point of view, nor in so far as Government Committees' Reports are normally to be judged.
With regard to the third television programme, I am one of those who believe that, in the circumstances, it would not be practicable to hand it over completely to the B.B.C. without raising the licence fee above an equitable figure. I know, of course, as has been stated, particularly by the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, that other countries in Europe pay rather larger licence fees; but this does not seem to me to be a reason why we should follow their example. The fact that in most of these countries State monopolies exist is, to my mind, unhealthy: most of them are, indeed, in regard to television in the same situation as this country was seven years ago, and in that respect we are ahead of them. I believe it is perfectly sensible to allow television to be financed by advertising; and I might add that the argument that the consumer is, in fact, paying for these programmes by an increase in the cost of goods is well answered in a letter to the Daily Telegraph to-day from the Chairman of the advertising Committee of the independent companies' organisation. This is a myth which has been constantly expressed, and he points out, what is a fact, that advertising on a mass scale of this size leads to a lower price, because it produces a much larger market.
My noble friend Lord Swinton, to whom I always listen with the greatest possible attention, has advocated a very interesting solution. So far as I understood him, it was that the third channel should be shared between the B.B.C. and the LT.A. That, of course, is a possibility, and I suppose it is also possible that such a service might be financed jointly, and that it could be a specialised one catering for minorities. However, for various reasons, it would seem to me that such a service might be highly uneconomical. Moreover, while I feel that it could certainly be accepted as a

821
temporary measure, I wonder whether this is the final solution. As the noble and learned Viscount the Lord President of the Council said yesterday [col. 606]:
"I do not ask noble Lords to mortgage their consciences in any way by tying themselves in advance to every detailed proposal contained in the White Paper."
I hope that that enables me to speak freely in this matter.
My Lords, this is a discussion, and so I hope that my noble friend will forgive me if, in this particular respect, I criticise somewhat the proposal in the White Paper. It seems to me that if the Government do not want to increase the licence fee, or to give a State subvention (various figures have been mentioned, but I am told that it might be around £45 million), then we must think of some other kind of finance. I submit that the I.T.V. have the means, and it should not be altogether out of the question that they should be given responsibility for a third channel. Under the present proposals, there is not sufficient money available to give effect to the Government's recommendations. On the other hand, if it were possible to reverse the procedure and allow the I.T.A. companies to start an additional channel, I feel that it might be worth reconsidering this point. The companies evidently have the resources. This solution, moreover, would achieve the competition which is desirable, and would also, of course, greatly reduce the profits. It would immediately halve them.
What I should particularly like to emphasise is that I consider it most important that a third service, whatever the content of the programmes, should be on the European standard of 625 lines—a principle that is accepted by the Pilkington Committee and the White Paper—and not on the old 405-lines standard. In view of the importance of trade with Europe and on entry into the Common Market, it seems to me essential that any new service should start off on this new and more generally accepted system. I also believe (and this is perhaps more important, and a new point in your Lordships' debate) that a new service on 625 lines should take priority over a duplication on 625 lines of the existing 405-line services. I hope that I am not being too technical here, but I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has taken my point.
822
From the Pilkington Report and the Government White Paper, at first I thought it was fairly clear that that was the intention and that it was generally agreed. From what the noble Viscount said in opening this debate (it is in column 612 of yesterday's Hansard), and also from the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, very late last night (for which I have not the Hansard before me), they seemed to think that the duplication of the first two of the existing two programmes on 625 lines might possibly take precedence over the third service. I should have thought it was most important to start with the new programme first. I think the ether is too precious to waste at first on mere duplication, although I know that it must ultimately be done. I hope, therefore, that the Government will be able to look very carefully again at this point. Moreover, I think that world experience has proved that any new station which broadcasts a duplicate programme never creates an audience. It is quite uneconomic to spend the capital required for an additional channel to operate a transmission which is virtually without an audience.
I should now like to quote what is described in the White Paper as "the long-term plan". In paragraph 33 the Committee say:
"The Committee take the view that it is right to plan on the assumption that the maximum use should be made of frequencies available. They foresee a need, in 15 years' time, for all six programmes. They recommend that one additional programme (B.B.C.) should be authorised immediately and a second (I.T.A.) within five years of the Authority being reconstituted as they propose."
From this it is clear that in years to come, in accordance with that paragraph, we should have two programmes on V.H.F. and perhaps four in the ultra-high-frequencies I should hope that it would be possible to have not only a second commercial channel, which would compete for advertising revenue with the existing companies, but also a channel wholly devoted to educational programmes. Maybe there could also be wired pay-television services which would provide further specialisation.
In so far as the second commercial channel is concerned, I hope that when this matter arises these new competing companies which will have to be licensed

823
will be licensed by the I.T.A. There would not be much point in establishing yet a third authority—that is to say, yet another bureaucracy. My own company, A.T.V., as I think your Lordships know, have always advocated the end of independent monopoly. They consider that there should be programmes being shown simultaneously in the principal areas by the independent services. They would provide the viewers with greater choice. They would put advertising on a normal commercial basis, rather than on a monopolistic basis; and, above all (and this point is one that I think I have already implied), would automatically reduce profits. On the question of profits, I should add that increasing wage demands, which were successfully pressed by the trade unions, including Equity, and rising production costs, as well as the whole development of television—and that is a very wide phrase—have already considerably reduced the profits of the existing companies.
In regard to educational television, if I may burden your Lordships for another three or four minutes, I should like to say how glad I was to hear the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, readvocate the idea of the university of the air. He seems very conscious of the value of educational broadcasting, and I was glad to see that the Government White Paper did not altogether rule out the possibility of a wholly educational channel, although it was said that it might be a mistake to hive off such educational programmes at this stage. I underline the words "at this stage." I am glad that it is not ruled out altogether. It is often said that there is not enough programming to fill further channels. But if we go wholeheartedly into education, there is no limit to the amount of valuable and useful programmes which can be included. Such services could be organised either by existing educational bodies or, at any rate, in close co-operation with them. I do not think that we should overlook the need for such a service.
One of the reasons why educational programmes do not fit well into a general service is the problem of outside broadcasts. For example, it may be a Head of State who is visiting this country one morning or one afternoon; or it may be the Cambridgeshire, or a programme that is being transmitted
824
to us by Telstar. When such an event is shown on television, it may mean that the schools programmes have to be cancelled, even though the schools themselves might, in many circumstances, prefer to take the schools programmes. That is why I believe in a wholly educational channel; and also because I do not think that even with two, three or four general services you could have all the different categories of educational programmes which seem to me to be desirable, whether organised from the extramural departments of our universities, which are the finest in the world, or in other ways. Yet how many people in this country are able to follow up their particular subjects, in accountancy, science, economics, and so on"! In the teaching of languages, too, there is a great deal more which could be done. There is a great deal more I could say on that, but I will not burden your Lordships, as we had a debate on this subject some two years ago, but I think it is always worth reminding ourselves of the educational value of the medium.
I will not again go into the problem of how it should be financed. It might follow the same pattern as that adopted to finance educational television in America, where there will be 80 such stations at the end of the year. That is to say, it might be done by a Government grant or through industrial foundations, or a combination of these different methods; and, of course, by subscriptions from the schools themselves, as well as from individuals who find the programmes to be of value. I hope that the Government will be able to give study to these possibilities and go Wholeheartedly into meeting the needs especially of vocational and apprenticeship training, and try to make television an established adjunct to liberal studies of all kinds.
In conclusion, may I repeat what I think most of your Lordships realise: that not all television on either channel is as bad as it is sometimes made out to be. Some of it on both services is already pretty good in comparison with that provided in other countries. Just as in the Elizabethan and Jacobean periods not all the plays were bawdy romps, we now have a number of moving, enlightening and even, I might say, in deference to the right reverend Prelate who quoted

825
Aristotle, cathartic experiences through the new medium. In referring to these bettor programmes I am reminded of the prologue to that remarkable tragedy, The Broken Heart, which your Lordships can hear Sir Laurence Olivier speak so magnificently in Chichester—a theatre which, incidentally, is greatly indebted to the television companies for their financial and other assistance. In reference to good programmes I should like to quote the few following lines from the prologue to The Broken Heart:
"The title lends no expectation here
Of apish laughter, or of some lame jeer
At place or persons; no pretended clause
Of jests fit for a brothel courts applause
From vulgar admiration;"
and he goes on—
"This law we keep in our presentment now, Not to take freedom more than we allow …"
My Lords, those last two lines about not taking freedom more than we allow, would, I recognise, be a motto rather of the O'Conor Committee than that of Sir Harry Pilkington's Committee. I am speaking particularly of the remarks about Violence on television which we have already discussed during this debate. In my view the conclusions of the O'Conor Committee, which did not advocate a written code in regard to the portrayal of violence, are sounder and more sensible than those of the Pilkington Committee, which press for the establishment of such a code, which the B.B.C. does possess.
It is worth noting, however—and reference may already have been made to this—that the British Board of Film Censors have always preferred to operate without written code. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has re-entered the Chamber, and I should like to pay a great tribute to the speech which he made at the start of this debate. He seemed to me to have more knowledge of the programmes even than some of those who are concerned with the companies themselves. His kindly and genial references to them should be welcomed by the B.B.C. and the Independent Television companies. He is truly one of those who appreciate what television has to give.
My Lords, I look forward to seeing an expansion in the fields of broadcasting
826
which will enable a wide and useful range of television programming on several channels, so that the people can really get the variety which they want and be enabled to have a choice. I am glad that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord President of the Council, recognises that this subject is one that will never stand still, certainly at this stage of its development.
5.46 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we have had a very long debate—one of the longest since your Lordships last debated television. First I should like to extend my good wishes to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack and is about to make his maiden speech. I am told that the agreeable remarks he has already made to us do not count and that he will still be covered by a maiden speaker's privilege; and obviously we shall expect him to be very uncontroversial.
In passing, I would add my own regret at the departure of his predecessor, not only in personal terms but also because he was one of the architects of Independent and Commercial Television; and we should have liked to hear what he now thinks of his child. His position in that sense is a more equivocal one than that of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who made not only an admirable but in every way an agreeable speech and set a tone to the debate which I hope, if possible, we shall succeed in maintaining in our subsequent discussions. He really went a long way to puncture the mythologies and nonsenses that are apt to grow as feeling grows in this matter. Whether he will succeed will depend a great deal on his colleagues in the Government—his future colleagues or present colleagues. None the less, I think he played a very valuable part by his speech yesterday.
I should also like to congratulate the maiden speaker the noble Earl, Lord Derby. He had a bit of bad luck yesterday. I do not think I need say more than that, beyond the thought that if it had not been his maiden speech we should all have enjoyed very much to cross swords with him. Certainly his manner was agreeable and his arguments were well delivered, even though I disagreed so strongly with them. But I do not

827
doubt that he will not allow another fourteen years to go by before he returns to this topic.
There is one point I should like to take up in the noble Earl's speech. He quoted a statement of evidence which was put before the Beveridge Committee by the Listeners' Association which, he said, suggested that the British Broadcasting Corporation had pursued a persistent policy of advocating and advertising Communism and trying to disrupt the life of the country. He gave this as an example of the danger of bodies that give this sort of evidence; but he went on to say that this body was the predecessor of the Viewers' and Listeners' Association and I have been asked to correct that. The Viewers' and Listeners' Association have never heard of the Listeners' Association, which seems to me to be more suitably linked with the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and possibly he was a member of it.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: He is not now.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Viscount gave us a most remarkable account of political prejudice. It is, of course, known to all of us who have been active in politics that our respective Parties are quite convinced that the B.B.C. is in the hands of the other Party. The number of times I have been told about Tory domination in the B.B.C can be equalled, I am sure, only by the number of times the Conservatives have been told of Socialist domination. But I regretted the noble Viscount's reference which rather implied the B.B.C. had gone Leftward during the war, in a way which implied that it let down the men who were overseas; and the noble Lord, Lord Aber-dare, who had been in the B.B.C, I think answered the accusation. I do not wish to take it further beyond saying that I think it was an unfortunate intervention in this aspect during a debate that has sought generally to remain on the high standard on which the noble Viscount started it.
I should have liked to debate at some length with the noble Earl who has just sat down. He made, I thought, one of his more agreeable speeches. Indeed, I think his advocacy of commercial tele-
828
vision is gaining polish all the time. And it was interesting to see this alliance between the Prelates' Bench and commercial television; I should not like to suggest there was a pressure group here, but perhaps there is some connection with the amount of time that is allotted to religious broadcasting that produces what I can only describe as a very strange alliance. It may be that the B.B.C. are too high-minded to cater in this way. But, none the less, the noble Earl did, I think, put his case moderately. However, the suggestion (and I think this was a suggestion that came from the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, also) that half the new channel should be handed over to the B.B.C. and half to I.T.A.—I may have misinterpreted; I was not sure whether he meant the same companies or new companies, whether it was a so-called breaking of the commercial monopoly, or what—struck me as the barmiest of all the ideas that have come out. People may criticise Pilkington for the solutions he has produced to this problem of the commercial monopoly, but to divide this channel between the B.B.C. and I.T.A. seems to be really extraordinary, and I am quite certain that that particular proposal is not a starter at all.
It is understandable that the commercial companies are a little concerned about the effect of this new channel from the B.B.C. and it is natural that they should be. But I think they are going to be lucky to get away without a good deal of rather painful reorganisation, and it was obvious, I think, to-day as yesterday, that those who have been so passionate in the past in defence of commercial television are somewhat on the defensive. We find this a completely good state of affairs for us, and we think we can discuss the proposals in the Pilkington Report with the seriousness which so many noble Lords have shown.
I think it has been striking in this debate how serious and how objective many of the speeches have been. On the whole, the speeches have crossed Party boundaries; there have been speeches from both sides of the House whose political origin it would have been impossible to identify. Certainly I have enjoyed very much the speeches from my own side including that from

829
my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth. It is interesting to see what keen televiewers Lord Morrison of Lambeth and Lord Swinton are. Nobody can suggest, as they used to in the past, that the House of Lords never watches television, because here, as the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, made clear, are some passionate viewers, and they view, suitably, I.T.A. or B.B.C. with complete impartiality.
Among the speeches which have certainly impressed me, in addition to that of my noble friend Lord Shepherd, was the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, who did in fact deliver, I think, a quite outstanding and very balanced speech. There were others to-day. It is a mistake to go through a catalogue of approval—and I have indicated one speech of which I did not approve very much—but I think we were most impressed by the extraordinary vigour that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, brings to these debates, and his extreme modernity. I was rather anxious before he got up as to the particular line he would take. He has one of the great merits that he continues to be as unexpected now as undoubtedly he was when he first flew an aeroplane. Some of those views he expressed were undoubtedly of great interest and I am sure the whole House agreed with him when he regretted (I think he used slightly more forceful language) attacks on the members of the Pilkington Committee.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, went out of his way to say he did not condemn them but he condemned the Government because they were not very distinguished. I think he was referring to the Committee, not the Government. This seemed to me an unkind sort of remark and there have been other remarks of that kind, and most notably of course from certain newspapers. I think it was the Daily Mirror which went beyond all reasonable limits in the way they referred to scraping the barrel in relation to this Committee. It is obvious, though, that most of us in this House, and I am quite sure all those who took part in the debate, had read the Pilkington Report, or at least a good deal of it.
Whatever we may say about if, the facts remain that twelve perfectly ordinary sensible people have come to very
830
definite conclusions and, most strikingly of all, unanimous conclusions. Arriving at those views is extraordinary in a field of ideas such as this, and arriving at unanimity is extraordinarily difficult. I think if we bad taken twelve philosophers, or indeed twelve Bishops, it would have been very unusual to find unanimity on points of such subtle doctrine as are involved in questions concerned with broadcasting. But perhaps, emulating the skill of the Church in these matters, they did not seek—and it has never been suggested—to produce a single dogma. They showed a good deal of courage in that they atempted to describe what they thought ware the purposes of broadcasting. They made their assumptions, but it would be unreasonable to expect that you could, as I Chink my noble friend Lord Longford suggested yesterday, roll it all up into a single dogma.
What they have done is to set out views and assumptions, and, if I may say so, I do not believe the sociologists could have helped them very much in this. I disagree with the criticism of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham—who was in agreement with my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger—that the Committee are to be blamed because they did mot make more use of sociological techniques of investigation. It is my fortune, or misfortune, to have to make use of these techniques sometimes and to study results, and it is quite clear that it would be impossible, unless one were to take five years and spend half a million pounds, to arrive at answers in detail to some of the questions which it has been suggested they should have investigated in this way. Indeed, this figure of half a million pounds was given to me by a distinguished sociologist. I think that in this field it is not reasonable to expect in broadcasting, any more than for the advertisers, excessive respect for the sociologists. I know we all wish to rush in. I am surprised to see that such a distinguished sociologist as Lady Wootton of Abinger should have thought that useful results could have been arrived at in a short enough time for them to have been incorporated in this Report.
Against this we had the personal sociological investigation of the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, who in his admirable and forceful speech told us how he went and sat among his friends

831
in the local working men's club (or it may have been the British Legion club), where I am sure that he is extremely popular with people of all Parties. He told us that when he asked them, "Are you corrupted by commercial television?", they said, "No". Then he said, "Are your children corrupted?" and "he said that they, with some indignation, answered "No, because we would not allow it". One can imagine the noble Lord perhaps asking the same question of the crowd at a public hanging 150 years ago. I think he would probably have received a rather ruder answer than in fact he received on this occasion. I do not think it is reasonable for us to expect the Pilkington Committee, dealing in this field of abstract ideas, to have done much more than seek to make up their own minds by their own observations, taking into account the evidence which they received. It is quite obvious that a great deal of evidence came before them. Some of it they accepted, and some of it they rejected.
I think the way that some of the things they have said have been interpreted is unfair. The noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, perhaps in a jocular way, said that he suspected that the Pilkington Committee might find their prejudices much the same as those of noble Lords on these Benches, against profits in general. That is an absurd remark. There is nothing anywhere to suggest that they are against profits in general. What they were against (these matters were brought before them by the I.T.A., and are a great embarrassment to the I.T.A.; and certainly, I should have thought, even to the programme contractors, although it is an embarrassment which they no doubt bear with equanimity) is the level of profits that have been made in recent years. This is a matter which, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, made clear, will obviously have to be dealt with in some way or another.
I should like to refer to certain other points in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale. He said [col. 681]:
"Parliament consciously, by a majority vote … in both Houses, did m fact determine to set up television supported by advertising, and for the purpose of advertising."
832
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, is not here now. One sometimes expects people who have taken part in a debate to be here when one is replying, but I am sure the noble Lord has a good reason for being absent. But I must go on making this point. The argument for setting up commercial television—an argument which many of us found unconvincing and rejected, but which none the less we believe a number of people held sincerely—was to break the monopoly: it was certainly not for the purpose of advertising. It would be most unfortunate if for one moment we were to accept that sort of view.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting? But this is most important. He has definitely come down on the side of advertising at the moment in general, not only on television, as an important part of our present industrial life. He is not condemning advertising as a whole.
LORD SHACKLETON: I shall be coming on to advertisements later, but certainly I would make the point again that the commercial television system, Independent Television, was not set up to provide a medium for advertisements. This was a by-product, and it was a way of providing finance for an alternative system of television in this country. I wanted just to deal with that particular point.
There were a number of smaller points which were dealt with in the debate to which I should like to refer briefly. There was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, about local broadcasting and the need to provide local services for motorists. The noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, dealt with this. The only difficulty about the possibility of providing any sort of service to a motorist, except on a medium wave, is that on VHF a motorist would be in grave difficulty in that all the time he is moving out of the range of the station which he wants. But that helps to illustrate the point that there is probably a rôle for local broadcasting of some kind. I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend Lord Stonham in his hope that the Government will allow an experiment in this field at an early date. The case put forward by the Pilkington Committee, that this should be controlled or run by

833
the B.B.C., is so cogent, and it i apparent that the B.B.C.'s views are so well developed on this, that I hope that some experiment will be started quit soon.
Another of the points that have been made during this debate has been; welcome for the fact that National Broadcasting or Television Council which are at present advising in Scot land, and I think still advising in Wales will now exercise a more executive and authoritative control over programmes Speaking personally, I regard this a; a wholly retrograde step. I do not expect my noble friends who come from these areas to agree with me, but I think it is of paramount importance—I am sun noble Lords who have been concerned in broadcasting will agree—not to put the producer too much at the mercy of local interests. They may be the most admirable people, but having myself had experience as a producer in regional broad-casting, I can say that I was only too thankful when I was protected in some degree from influences of a kind that I thought would have made bad broadcasting. By all means let these Councils be advisory. But I would stress again—I am sure that noble Lords particularly having an interest in commercial broadcasting will agree—that freedom of the producer, and protection from undue influence of any kind, is highly desirable.
That brings me to the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Francis-Williams last night; that B.B.C. producers were not particularly happy about the Pilkington Report; that they felt that there was a danger that it would strengthen those administrative or bureaucratic influences which they felt might stand in the way of good broadcasting. I do not know how widespread was this feeling, or how far it was justified. I commented that they must have read the Pilkington Report very quickly to have arrived at that opinion. But in any event I think it is true that in the B.B.C. (I think this is almost certainly true also in commercial television) there are producers who are bound to be dissatisfied with authority, who are bursting with ideas and who, I hope, will be rebellious of that authority. But they have to work within established bounds; they have, in the last resort, probably to work within a budget, whether it is within a publicly owned or privately
834
owned company. But I think there an to-day in broadcasting—and I think we should be grateful for this—a consider able number of people who are anything but complacent over the sort of programmes that they put out, and who are only too anxious to develop then further.
We have had a good deal of discussion about the question of violence Here, I think the Pilkington Committee have been fairly moderate. They pointed out that violence, particularly of the standard Western type, or even the gangster type, is so stylised as not to be very harmful. They go into this question of violence in a good deal of detail, and they differentiate between the kinds of violence, and particularly the quantity of it, that might be of harm. I do not think this is a matter on which it is easy to establish the effects. The effects may or may not be shown as time passes. They may or may not be reflected in delinquency, or in other antisocial acts. It is very difficult to judge. But I think there is at least some evidence, and some reason to believe, that too much violence, and certain extreme kinds of violence, are apt to be harmful. This seems to be a reasonable view which the great majority of your Lordships would have come to, and to condemn Pilkington and regard it as "namby-pamby" or unduly soft because of such opinions as this seems to be unreasonable.
My Lords, one of the pleasant things about this debate is that, with few exceptions, we have not begun to play what the First Lord of the Admiralty is pleased to call "the numbers game" in trying to compare the relative viewerships of the different programmes. For a long while commercial television was extremely proud of its T.A.M. ratings. I think that T.A.M. ratings have been a little exploded lately. Moreover, the B.B.C. have produced their own figures which show that their listenership at peak-viewing hours is getting closer all the time to that of commercial television.
One of the important points made by the Pilkington Committee is that it is not simply a matter of counting heads. The point is: is it better to give a majority something that it tolerates or enjoys mildly, or is it better to give a large minority something that gives

835
it intense satisfaction or enjoyment? Surely in a free society we should cater not just for headless majorities, but for a whole range of different individuals and groups, each with tastes of their own. I should be the first to admit that there are programmes on I.T.A. which fulfil that very aim, and provide that sort of interest. But there is some justification for saying—and we cannot dismiss this—that there has been an undue preponderance of mass audience programmes at peak-viewing hours. On Saturdays, when the B.B.C. themselves go out for these mass audience programmes, their programmes have borne a very close relationship with, and similarity to, those of I.T.V. In this matter of trying to assess the effect and value of these programmes (and here again I think the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, was wrong) it is surprising that I.T.A. have done very little in the way of audience research. I am quite sure that this is a responsibility which they ought to take upon themselves in future.
Yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, made a plea for co-ordination of programmes. He said how annoying it was to see a "leg show" on each of the two programmes, and he made a plea for co-ordination. It is interesting to note that in his evidence to the Pilkington Committee (unless he also feels that he has been wrongly interpreted) he makes a plea for competition. But I do not see how we can have competition and coordination of these two particular operations. It really is not possible to achieve that. Quite clearly, there will have to be some co-ordination in regard to these matters on the new ultra-high-frequencies. This may be a painful experience for them, though not perhaps as painful as the Religious Advisory Council. The argument of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, that what we now wanted was co-ordination was the main argument put forward by those of us who asked for complementary and not competing programmes. Now we have been confronted with an alternative programme, with a rigid networking system of a kind that certainly produces a monopolistic position, as many supporters of I.T.V. have admitted. That is why at this present moment the Pilkington
836
Committee—rather like the Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, earlier—have decided to recommend four complementary programmes.
The alternative argument for competition does not stand up, except so far as the advertiser is concerned. There is indeed a case for more commercial television services in order that the advertiser should not be held up by the limited advertising resources. But, of course, television does not exist for the advertiser. It exists for the viewers; and it is the viewer who counts. A theme that is repeated time and again in the Pilkington Report—and I do not see how anybody can reject it—is that the only way in which we can hope to get a reasonable choice of programme is by giving the B.B.C. a second programme. I am very glad to see that the Government have now adopted this proposal.
My Lords, the most controversial part of the Report (and, indeed, this is the matter from which the Government have retired, or at least which they are approaching with great caution, and I do not blame them for it) is: what is to be done about the I.T.A.? It may be that the I.T.A. have had a raw deal from the Pilkington Committee, but they seem to have been extremely inept in some of the things they put forward, which is really quite extraordinary. In fact, the programme contractors made much more intelligent remarks than I.T.A., and recognised much more clearly their responsibilities. But what are we going to do about I.T.A.? We do not want to go on hounding Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick or Sir Robert Fraser, but we have to find a solution. I myself do not know whether the Pilkington solution is the right one, but a number of noble Lords, and indeed others who have been active in this field, believe that it is possible. It is certainly something that ought not to be rejected out of hand.
There have been published opinions on this. I do not know whether anybody has quoted the Television Quarterly of the British Film Institute, who came out very strongly on this matter. They say:
"Something must be done, and the reorganisation proposed by the Pilkington Committee is, failing any other proposals, the best solution

837
we have. It can be faulted in detail. Its workability can only be demonstrated in practice."
Those who criticise the Pilkington proposals do not seem to be bothered at all by the extraordinary complexity of the present arrangements—the arrangements both for the selling of advertising, and for the networking of programmes. It is quite clear that the Independent Television Authority, the Government, and indeed some of the programme contractors—certainly the smaller ones—want something to be done about this rigidity in the networking arrangements. It is to break this rigidity and introduce some real competition in broadcasting among these programme contractors that the Pilkington Report makes its proposals.
Yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, expressed a good deal of anxiety about the future of some of the smaller programme contractors. I should have thought that if this sort of proposal were put into effect it might well make possible the survival, if they are really seriously endangered, of the smaller programme contractors. Indeed, I think, it would be very serious if the smaller programme contractors disappeared. I agree with those who suggest that the programme contractors are rendering a local service. I do not think it is fair that they should all the time be claiming how much better they are doing than the B.B.C. The B.B.C. have never been able to develop these services, and the people to blame for this are the Government—not just this Government or any other Government, but the Government who succeeded in taking £95 million, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, from the licence holders.
My Lords, time presses on and we are shortly due for a natural break at 7 o'clock. I must allow time for the noble and learned Lord to wind up this debate. I think there is not even space to say very much about advertising. I should only like to say this in conclusion: that I think the critics of Pilkington have been unfair in saying that the Committee's Report is restrictive. It is not restrictive. They make clear time and again—and one could quote at length the things they have said—that they want the widest possible range of programmes. They say that anything less than that is deprivation. They em-
838
phasise something that we, as legislators, ought to take seriously into account: they emphasise that it is in this sort of field that ideas can develop and the challenges and problems of this age can be faced. They emphasise again the importance of experiment and of giving a hearing to dissent.
We cannot deny, however much attention we may pay to particular social surveys, that television is a social force. By itself, a particular programme may have little effect. Over the years, like the behaviour of anyone, whether it is our friends, our colleagues or those whom we meet, it has a very great effect, indeed. It is to the more positive side of television that we hope a lead can be given, not just by those who want to give the public what they think is good fat it but by those who have creative ideas of their own and beliefs that they want to develop. These can help to give us not only good light entertainment of the kind of which my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth is so fond—and, I admit, so am I—but also of the kind of which the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, is fond. I was struck by the modest way in which he said he wanted more music. He said, "I want more music on television, because I enjoy it so much, and I wish other people could have that enjoyment". This seems to be a very reasonable and sensible view.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive my saying so, Sir Thomas Beecham once told me that music on television was no good. It has to be heard, not seen.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, would not agree. I think, on occasions it is better seen and not heard. But with the development of stereophonic sound and the vision of it, this is the next best thing to going to a concert. We in the West have sometimes been accused of being trivial and without social purpose, as opposed to the Communist countries. I think that the Pilkington Report, and what I hope the Government are going to do, will show that we can have a sense of responsibility in these things.
6.23 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in 1943, when I was first elected to another place, your Lordships were allowing that House to use this Chamber,

839
and I well remember making my maiden speech speaking from what is now the third Bench occupied by the Opposition. I still remember what an ordeal that was and how nervous I felt. To-day I make my maiden speech to your Lordships and my feelings are very similar to, though not so acute as, those that I had just over 19 years ago. Perhaps they are not so acute, because of the unusual coincidence of making both maiden speeches to different Houses in the same Chamber.
Yesterday we had another maiden speech—that of my noble friend, Lord Derby. I listened to his speech with the greatest interest. I thought, if I may say so, that he made his points very clearly indeed. He had some cricitisms to make of the Pilkington Report, and he was not alone in doing that. I was indeed surprised, and not a little alarmed for my own sake, to hear it being suggested that he had been controversial. Whether or not he was controversial is not for me, as a newcomer to your Lordships' House, to judge; but I am sure he was not controversial in the sense in which that word is used in another place. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, with whom I had some enjoyable controversy in days gone by, would agree with me. My Lords, I have not the least desire or intention to be in any way controversial to-night. If I transgress, it will be unintentional, and I am alarmed lest I should transgress, for I fear that not all I say is likely to secure universal agreement.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I hope everything else will be, but not the last part.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope I shall not be reproved for being controversial on that account. But I do crave from your Lordships the indulgence which I know is extended to all in the position in which I am to-day.
My Lords, I think this is the first debate in this House to which I have listened almost from the beginning to the end. Your Lordships' House enjoys a great reputation for great debates and, having listened to this debate during these last two days, I hope I may be
840
permitted to say that there is no doubt that this reputation is nightly enjoyed. It has been a very interesting discussion to listen to. It has covered a very wide field, and now I enter upon what I feel is a really formidable task: that of making the winding-up speech in a two-day debate in which so many have spoken and have spoken so well. But my task is lightened to a great extent by the speech made by my noble friend Lord St. Oswald late last night. I thought he did it admirably, if I may say so, and he certainly covered a great many technical points With which I should be quite incompetent to deal.
There have been moments when it has seemed to me that we have been debating the Report of the Pilkington Committee perhaps rather more than the Motion before us, which is just,
"That this House approves the Memorandum on the Report of the Committee on Broadcasting".
We are, of course, debating the White Paper and not the Report, though naturally we have to consider the White Paper against the background of that Report. I am sure the House will agree that that White Paper is an important document, for it deals with the whole future of broadcasting in its fullest sense: with the structure of commercial television, sound broadcasting and additional B.B.C. programmes, educational programmes and many other matters.
We have set out in Part II of the White Paper our proposals, and in Part III the recommendations on which the Government have thought it right to reserve their decision for the time being. I hope that the House will think that this is a sound and sensible approach, and that, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said to-day, the Government had taken a wise view of the Pilkington Report. I am glad, too, that this met with the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams. It would, indeed, have been wrong for the Government to have delayed informing Parlament of our proposals, set out as they are in the White Paper, until we had reached a conclusion on the other matters on which we have reserved our decision. But I can assure your Lordships that the views expressed in this debate, both with regard to our proposals and with regard to the matters

841
on Which we still have to reach a conclusion, will be most carefully considered.
The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, at the beginning of his speech, reminded us of the comments made in the Press. He criticised them and we listened to his criticisms, and I am sure the House was glad to learn from him that, despite his criticisms, they all remained good friends of his. Even though we may not agree with all the conclusions of the Pilkington Committee, even though it may be thought that, to use a lawyer's phrase, there was insufficient evidence to support some of their conclusions, or even, it may be, that their verdict on one or two matters was against the weight of evidence, I am sure that Parliament and the country are indebted to them for all the work that they have voluntarily done.
Sometimes it is overlooked how much time and effort goes into the production of a Report such as this, and I myself feel Chat, even if we do not accept all the conclusions they have reached, it should be generally recognised that men and women of integrity and vision have laboured hard to fulfil the task set to them. I was very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, touch upon this matter; and I hope noble Lords will agree, whether we agree with their conclusions or not, that, really, what they have done has been most helpful to us in our deliberations. I think it is true to say not only that the content of their Report has been of real help to us but also that it will be a help to all those who have to consider the future of broadcasting.
The noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, with that frankness one would expect of him, revealed that he had changed his view, the view that he had previously expressed, that there should be a monopoly of television. I am glad that that is so, as he must now be glad that his advice as to that was not followed in 1954. I also think I detected a change of view in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth. He said that there should not be television too many hours of the day; for, he said, it was not good for people to stay up late at night. My Lords, there was a time, when he was leading the other House, when he must have thought it was good
842
for one to stay up late, and very late, for he insisted on our doing so. Many a time has he kept me from my bed, but I would not suggest for one moment that he sought to do something then which he did not think was good for us. So, my Lords, I think I can rightly put forward the contention that he also, like the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, has had a change of view.
Now there was one thesis which he put forward on which I should like to say a little: a proposition that seems to me to be the basis on which the opposition to the idea of programme companies receiving revenue from advertisements is founded. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, asserted that the introduction of the commercial element is bound to depreciate television broadcasts and is bound to lower standards. If this really is so, I think it is a terrible thought. If this be true of the effect of the commercial element on television, is there any reason why it should not be equally true in other fields? Have we really to envisage a constant lowering of standards so long as we have a free and competitive Press dependent on a commercial element? Personally, my Lords, I do not believe this to be the case. Public opinion and taste Change, and I should not be surprised to see a strong reaction from the public—Indeed, I am not sure that it is not beginning—and I should not be surprised to see a demand from the public for higher standards. If that were to happen, and if that is happening, is there any reason to suppose that there will be mo effort on the part of the television companies to meet it?
My Lords, it is perhaps a little curious to reflect that, just after we have changed and relaxed the law, by the passage of a Bill introduced into another place by a Private Member, so that books and novels of a character which in the old days would have invited prosecution can now be published with impunity and bought by children and young persons, we should now be considering tightening up television broadcasts for the purpose primarily, if I understand it correctly, of protecting that category of society.
I listened with the greatest interest to the speech made by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Leicester. I enjoyed his observations, and particularly

843
his reference to the reliance that we should place on healthy common sense. We have adopted that with regard to literature, to the printed word. I myself should have thought we should apply the same teat, and keep the same test vary much in mind, when we are considering the position, not in relation to the printed word hut to the picture that flashes across the screen.
My Lords, this debate, like the White Paper, has covered a wide field, and a wide variety of views have been expressed. The noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, stressed the need, in his view, for more televising of music. The noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, asked for more sound radio, which he said was supreme in one thing—music; and I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, agrees with him. I must confess that in this particular controversy I find myself on their side, for I have not found that a close-up of a man beating a big drum or blowing a trumpet added to my appreciation of music.
We had some discussion, too, on triviality. At one time I thought it was suggested that that was due to the commercial element. I think that was hinted at, if not completely expressed. The other contention or view put forward was that triviality was largely due to the difficulty of filling with good material the long hours of television now available. But then again it was said—and this shows the wide variety of opinion in this House upon the matter—.that if you had long hours of television it would be possible to have more serious and more complete discussions, and, I gathered, more possible to avoid the kind of difficulty to which the right reverend Prelate referred—that of important questions being raised, slick questions, demanding a slick answer, an immediate answer, without any time in which to think. When I listened to the right reverend Prelate I wondered what would be said if, in the courts, witnesses were always expected to answer without having a moment for reflecting what they had to say. I do not believe that it would be regarded as likely to lead to the proper administration of justice: and I agree with the right reverend Prelate that these slick answers to pointed questions do not often add to the elucidation of the problem.
844
Something has been said about "natural breaks"—and as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, one will be coming here in a very short space of time. My Lords, on this point many different views can be held. My wife's view is that they are very convenient. They enable her to go out and put through a local telephone call or do something else without missing any important part of a talk. But that, of course, is not an argument for a "natural break" for advertising.
As I have said, I think the task before me tonight is a formidable one. It certainly would be extremely formidable—and, indeed, wearisome to the House—if I sought to reply to every single point raised in the course of the speeches of to-day and yesterday. I shall not, if the House will permit me, attempt to deal with them, but I will attempt to deal with what I think has been the main point of controversy between the speakers. I think the main subject of controversy has been the proposal to divert the revenue earned by advertising from the programme companies to the I.T.A. That was the argument, as I have said, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and also by the noble Earl, Lord Longford: the argument that the commercial element due to the collection of revenue adversely affects the standard of television. I do not suppose that anything I say will affect the minds of those who hold that view. I, of course, respect their views, and the sincerity with which they have been expressed: but I simply do not accept the proposition that it is impossible to work to secure a profit and, at the same time, work for the public good. Nor do I personally accept the premise which I think was implied in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Longford: that if your object is the public good, and you do not have to worry about money, it necessarily follows that you will in fact do more for the public good than those who sell advertising as well as producing programmes.
The noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, spoke a good deal about sponsored programmes. We do not have sponsored programmes. That matter was deliberately omitted from the 1954 Act. We

845
have separated the production of individual programmes from the direct pressure of advertisers. It is now suggested that instead of separation there should be a complete divorce: that the commercial dement, although it does not directly affect the individual programme, does so indirectly by lowering the tone—by giving the public more of what they want, and not enough, perhaps, of what they should want.
My Lords, I see television only at week-ends, and not always then. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, referred to Perry Mason. I am glad that he enjoys him. I am glad, too, that he has not suggested that we should adopt similar procedures in our courts. The point was made by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, that criminal activities on television nearly always end up with the criminal being caught, but I have yet to see a Perry Mason picture which has resulted in a conviction. If I may say so, while it may be true that the change of theme from the times when the criminal always escaped, which one used to read in one's youth, has altered to the case which you see on television of the criminal always being caught, I do not think that that antithesis completely concludes the matter. I am not at all sure that some of these crimes which one sees committed on television, where the criminal is ultimately caught, do not put ideas into some people's heads, who may say: "Well, that is a very clever way of doing it, but if only he had not made that mistake, he would not have been caught." I believe that is a factor which has to be borne into account.
But I myself think that we have to be on our guard not to adopt a more grandmotherly attitude in relation to television than we do in relation to literature, and that we should rest on, and place our confidence in, the healthy common sense of the people who use this instrument. I should just like to say this. Speaking for myself—and we each have our own opinion on the question—apart from advertising, when I look at television at week-ends I find very little to choose between the two programmes.
I hope that the House approves of the statements in paragraph 80 of the White Paper, and I think it does, from
846
the speeches which have been made. The previous paragraph says:
"The Committee's main argument is that in the context of the present structure it is impossible fully to reconcile the commercial purpose of the companies with the realisation of the 'purposes of broadcasting'".
Then the White Paper goes on to say in paragraph 80:
"Whether this argument is valid is a question about which there are obviously two opinions;"—
this debate has made that absolutely clear—
"in any case the Government feels that the practical difficulties presented by these proposals have not been fully appreciated. So fundamental a change in the structure of independent television requires the most thorough examination"—
I am sure the House will agree with that—
"and the Government wishes to be satisfied that any new structure would remedy the defects it was designed to overcome and would not throw up equally serious difficulties of its own or deprive the system of those features for which it can fairly claim credit."
I hope the House will forgive me for reminding it of those words. I think that that correctly sums up the present position on that particular question.
My Lords, on this problem we must, all of us, try to arrive at the right answer in the interests of the country. The Pilkington Report is useful, as I am sure this debate will be most useful, in focusing public attention on the issues and the problems it involves.
I should like to deal, if I may, with one or two points which have been made to-day. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, made a most interesting speech in which he put forward proposals for further finance. They were interesting suggestions, but I should not be guilty of exaggeration if I were to say that none of them was free from difficulty. We will certainly consider them most carefully. He also referred to pressure groups. I do not see any reason why any of us in this House, or in any other place, should be alarmed by pressure groups; for they are easy to identify, and unless their arguments are sound they have very little effect on the course of action taken by either this House or the other.
I think I need not say much more in answer to the points which have been raised to-day. I should like to conclude

847
my speech to your Lordships on a personal note. During my eleven years as a Law Officer I have had little, if any-thing, to do with the problems arising from television, though there seems now to be a growing tendency for television to provide work for the courts. I have never spoken in a television debate before. For me it is a novel experience, I should like to express my gratitude to your Lordships for listening to me sc kindly, and I hope that I have not transgressed the ancient custom of this House by saying anything controversial.
6.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend puts the Question, perhaps I might be allowed to exercise what is technically a right of reply by congratulating him on his safe deliverance of his maiden speech. I felt a little guilty in throwing him in "at the deep end", as it were, and making him wind up, so soon after his introduction, a full-scale debate. I was very conscious of the nervousness which he feels. People think that lawyers do not feel nervousness when they speak in public, but I can testify to the fact that we feel just as much nervousness as anybody else. I hope the House will agree that the noble and learned Lord has delivered himself very honourably and capably on this first occasion, and that we have much to look forward to in the debates in which he will take an increasingly controversial part, I have no doubt, in the future.
On Question, Resolution agreed to.

UGANDA INDEPENDENCE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
House adjourned during pleasure. House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
7.0 p.m.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:
Acts of Parliament Numbering and Citation,
848

Shops (Airports),

Local Authorities (Historic Buildings),

Building Societies,

Town and Country Planning,

Drainage Rates,

Jamaica Independence,

Colonial Loans,

Law Reform (Damages and Solatium) (Scotland),

Carriage by Air (Supplementary Provisions),

Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation (Brighouse),

Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation (Doncaster),

Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation (Sidmouth),

Grimsby Corporation,

South Essex Waterworks,

Ship Mortgage Finance Company,

London County Council (Money),

Manchester Corporation,

Runcorn District Water Board.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
7.12 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD EBBISHAM: My Lords, this Bill is now a very small one, comprising only thirteen short clauses. As originally deposited, it contained a number of other somewhat more contentious provisions which have not, however, proceeded beyond another place. The Bill now under consideration deals only with a few administrative matters necessary for the better working of certain of the Corporation's functions.
Clauses 1 and 2 are by way of definition. By Clause 3 the Corporation seek power to borrow for purposes of Billingsgate Market. Under the City of London (Various Powers) Acts of 1937 and 1958 the Corporation obtained powers to raise sums of money for the purpose of certain works connected with

849
the market. Those works were carried out, but the amount of money which was authorised to be borrowed was not fully spent. Now it is necessary for further works to be done, and the object of this clause is that authority should be given for these works to be carried out with the money which has previously been authorised. Opportunity is also taken to consolidate in this clause the borrowing powers.
Clause 4 provides for the amendment of Section 17 of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1961, in its application to the City. This section authorises rating authorities to refund in certain cases rates overpaid. One of these cases is where the hereditament is unoccupied during the period. When the Bill for the Act of 1961 was before Parliament the Corporation drew the attention of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to this problem, and indicated that in the City, because of the very great number of office premises, it often happened that hereditaments were divided up during a rating period, and that the owner or occupier, whoever was responsible for the payment of the rates, sometimes overpaid because, by mistake, he did not apply to have the premises re-rated. The point was made, therefore, that it would be desirable that Section 17 should be extended to enable the rating authority to make a refund where premises were partly unoccupied. Because the Ministry took the view that it was not a general problem but one of local application to the City only, it was thought that the Corporation should deal with the matter in a local enactment, and the clause has been agreed with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. It should be noted that before a refund can be made a certificate must be obtained from the valuation officer as to the manner in which the hereditament would have been treated if a proposal for alteration in the valuation list had occurred in the normal way, and that the certificate would be binding on the rating authority.
Clause 5 relates to the acquisition and preservation et cetera of documents, and, I think, can conveniently be taken with Clauses 6 and 7 and also Clause 8, which is the interpretation of these clauses. By Clause 8 references to the Corporation in Clauses 5, 6 and 7 are
850
to be construed as references to the Corporation in their capacity as a local authority. As your Lordships know, the Corporation have various capacities, one being a local authority, another as an ancient municipality and another as trustees of the Bridge House Estates. As an ancient municipality the Corporation already have powers to do everything provided in these clauses, but the money must come from their own resources. But a number of recent Acts have been promoted by other local authorities where similar powers have been conferred to expend rate monies for this purpose, and the intention of these clauses is to enable the Corporation to expend rate monies for this purpose.
Clause 7, enabling the Corporation, by agreement, to acquire any land of historical or architectural interest, and to pay contributions towards preserving such land, is a re-statement of a power contained in Section 15 of the City of London (Various Powers) Act, 1954. But as there is some doubt as to whether rate monies can be expended under that power it has been thought desirable to include it in its present form in this Bill; and it is proposed in Clause 11 to repeal the existing provision.
Clause 9, "Power to transfer lands to Bridge House Estates," relates to the Corporation as Trustees for the Bridge House Estates. In that capacity, the Corporation maintain four London bridges, London Bridge, Tower Bridge, Black-friars Bridge and Southwark Bridge, and in that capacity they also own various lands and estates, the surplus requirements of which are devoted to the maintenance and improvement of the bridges. The Corporation at the present time are promoting a Bill for the improvement of London Bridge, and because there are certain lands owned by the Corporation, other than as Trustees for the Bridge House Estates, which are required for the purpose of the works authorised by that Bill, this clause is included to provide a convenient means for the transfer of land which they own in one capacity to land which they own in another capacity. The sole object of the clause is to provide for a fair valuation of the beneficial interests involved.
The remaining clauses I think need no explanation from me, although, of course, if your Lordships wish it, I shall be very glad to give it. As I have said,

851
this is a small Bill which is unopposed, and I do not think that it could in any way be regarded as contentious. It is, however, of great importance to the City Corporation, in order that the Corporation may continue to carry out the services which they provide for the public in general. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Ebbisham.)
7.20 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, the City of London (Various Powers) Bill usually goes through without much trouble but I think it is a good thing for the City that it should have a bit of trouble now and again. I have a great respect for the ancient history of the City of London, and I do not forget that it was one of the champions of Parliament against absolute Monarchy, and that there is a picture in the House of Commons of five Members gating into a boat. They went to the City of London and were safe from Royal wrath. Therefore I do not approach the City of London with any cynical view about its past. I have a little cynicism, however, about its present. Those days are gone. It now says that it has no politics. I suppose it has not because it does not need to. It is a sort of totalitarian State with only one Party on the Common Council, but I think it needs looking at now and again because it has become narrow, with an "iron curtain" around its square mile. It does not take an interest in the rest of London and is totally indifferent to the proposed threat to kill the London County Council, which I think is very bad and in conflict with the past civic fight of the City for local government rights. I think it is legitimate to ask some questions about the provisions of the Bill which is now before the House and I am much obliged to the noble Lord for the exposition he has given on it.
The first clause on which I should like to ask some questions is Clause 3, giving power to borrow for the purposes of Billingsgate Market. Billingsgate Market is itself a subject of controversy. Some of us think that it ought to be abolished and put somewhere else, or that there should be a group of per-
852
haps four mixed markets on the edge of the County of London, which would save a lot of traffic congestion. This proposal the Government have so far rejected; but what I am asking is: Is it wise to give the City additional borrowing powers in the case of a market which is widely recognised to be a nuisance from the traffic point of view? And could not this additional borrowing power for this reason be postponed, in view of the fact that the future of the market may be somewhat uncertain?
I come then to Clause 4. This seems to me a constitutional novelty in that it is an amendment to a Public General Act. I should have thought it was a little questionable for an individual local authority to come to Parliament for power to amend a Public General Act. I should have thought that, if such an Act were to be amended, it would be for the Government of the day to bring in appropriate amending legislation. I am open to correction on this—I may be wrong—but it seems to me rather strange and a new thing to happen, and to establish a precedent. Personally, I do not think that empty property should go free of rates. I think a 25 per cent, levy of rates in the case of empty property would be legitimate, because the Corporation of London, the London County Council, and the police have to provide services for property, even if it is empty. Obviously, the police must keep an eye on it, in order to protect it, and there must be other services—for example, drainage and so on; otherwise the property would not be lettable to a prospective tenant or saleable to a prospective purchaser. I do not like this provision that the class of empty property should be totally exempt from rates. I think it is unjust to the other ratepayers both of the City and of the London County Council, and, for that matter, to the Metropolitan Police rates.
Clause 6 surprises me a little. I should have thought the Corporation already had Dowers to subscribe to such societies which have association or connections with the City of London and to pay the expenses of persons who attend their meetings. My impression is that many local authorities already do this, and I should have thought it was a lawful expense without special powers being

853
given in the case of the City of London. It may be that the other local authorities, in incurring or proposing to incur expenses of which the legal validity may be doubtful, can go to the Minister of Housing and Local Government and ask for expenditure in specific cases. If that is so, I should have thought the Corporation of London could do it without coming to Parliament for these rather wide powers intended especially for application to the square mile of the City of London.
My Lords, Clause 10, mystifies me a little. I cannot see where the sense would be whereby a judge of a court or a justice should be disqualified from acting in the execution of any enactment relating to the Corporation by reason of liability to any rates. But if that is the general law, in order to protect the possibility of the bench being biased in favour of the local authority, I should have thought there was no particular case for its repeal in the City of London. Therefore, I should like to know why this special provision is brought in in the case of the City of London. If the general law operates in the way this clause proposes to repeal, I should have thought there was a case for the amendment of the general law.
Clause 11, my Lords, deals with repeals. The first of the three that I am not dear about is the repeal of Section 27 of the City of London (Various Powers) Act, 1937—the power to borrow. There is no explanation given, unless it be the case that in this Bill new powers are taken which make the earlier power of the Act of 1937 unnecessary. Perhaps the noble Lord would be good enough to give us an explanation of that. Then it is proposed to repeal Section 15 of the City of London (Various Powers) Act, 1954—namely "Acquisition of buildings, &c, of historical or architectural interest". That strikes me as a little curious, unless the Corporation have powers in other respects. Section 13 of the Act of 1958, which gives additional power to borrow for the purposes of Billingsgate Market, is also repealed. My comments here would be much the same as they were on the earlier clause. It may be, of course, that the new provision in that earlier clause about Billingsgate Market takes the place of this.
854
Those are the points I wanted to mention, my Lords, and I shall be glad to have such explanation as can be given. I would congratulate the noble Lord on his speech in moving the Bill. If my memory serves me rightly, I was associated with his ancestor When he was Lord Mayor in the City, and he was always kind to me. I notice that we are to have some observations from the new Minister of State at the Home Office, who has always been very kind and courteous, even when I have not. I should like to congratulate him on his promotion and I hope he enjoys himself in my old Department, which is one of the most worthy Departments in the British Government and, unlike Continental Ministries of the Interior elsewhere, one of the greatest guarantees of civil liberty in our country. That remark is completely out of order, because it has nothing to do with the City of London, but I thought I might be permitted to say so, and I am much obliged to your Lordships for your courtesy.
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, might I first of all support what the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, said about Lord Jellicoe's promotion and I would sincerely like to add my congratulations. In as short a sentence as possible I should like to tell the noble Lord that most of the matters he raised are precisely the points that will be examined by my noble friend Lord Merthyr and his counsel in the Committee. I do not think there is anything more to say about that, but those points will be gone into.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE, (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ebbisham, has, I 'think, explained the purpose of this Private Bill with luminous lucidity. I feel rather coy, if I may say so, following him on these recondite City matters, since it was only about a week or so ago that I was received as a "new boy" into the Mercers' Company and one of the grave, gowned figures to whom I made my bow was my noble friend. In my brief comments on this Bill I will try to avoid teaching my grandmother in the City how to suck eggs. May I also, by way of preface to these brief words, very sincerely thank the noble Lord, Lord

855
Morrison of Lambeth, for those kind words about me personally, and could I just add that as a "new boy" in his old Department I am sure that the officials of that Department will read with gratitude what he said about it?
Clearly, this being a Private Bill, and I myself being a "new boy" as a Freeman of the City of London, I think it would be wrong and unnecessary for me to traverse in any detail the ground already covered by my noble friend Lord Ebbisham. Indeed, since this is a Private Bill, and truly a Private Bill, it would probably be quite inappropriate for me to do so, even in this packed House and in the electric atmosphere of this evening.
Perhaps I could just mention one or two of the clauses to which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has referred. On Clause 3, the power to borrow for purposes of Billingsgate Market, I would say that Government-wise we see no objection to this particular clause and in fact the Ministry of Agriculture, whom it particularly concerns, support the improvements which are at present being carried out there. I will mention Clause 4 at somewhat greater length. On Clause 10 to which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, referred, about the non-disqualification of judges, I must with some diffidence confess that this is in fact a matter which concerns the Home Office, and I would assure the noble Lord that the Home Office, in that infinite wisdom to which he has referred, see no objection to it.
Perhaps I should say just a word more about Clause 4, since my noble friend Lord Ebbisham mentioned that that particular clause had been discussed with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I do so with greater pleasure since the blessed word "hereditament" dropped from his lips in explaining it, and I have always thought it was one of the jollier words in the English language. I can confirm that this clause was in fact discussed with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and that my right honourable friend the Minister supports the purpose behind it.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, was this when the noble Earl was at the Ministry?
EARL JELLICOE: It was in fact when I was there.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: May I congratulate the noble Lord on having got out of that dreadful Department?
EARL JELLICOE: I will not follow the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, in the pursuit of that particular red herring. I would confirm that this clause was discussed with the Minds-try, and of course it was drafted with an eye to the rating problems of office premises in the City of London. This is clearly a matter which particularly concerns the City, given the concentration of offices there, and it is of importance to those who work there. That is why it was not included in the more general Rating and Valuation Act which Parliament approved last year. I do not think that there is anything unusual or unconstitutional in the proposal to amend, in respect of the City, Section 17 of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1961, as is suggested here.
However, I take the point that it may not only be the City of London which has this particular problem, and I have also listened with interest to the observations of the noble Lord on the general matter of the rating of unoccupied office premises. As he well knows, Rating and Valuation Acts come and go pretty regularly, and if the object of this particular clause in this Private Bill is of more general application, and if the criticisms of it which the noble Lord has expressed are valid, that can be taken care of in a future Rating and Valuation Act. I will make a point of drawing these observations to the attention of the Ministry for which he has such a particular fondness. I think those are the only clauses on which Government-wise I would wish to comment.
More generally, I would remind your Lordships' House that it is your usual practice to grant a Private Bill a Second Reading, and I have no hesitation in recommending that on this occasion you should follow your usual practice.
7.37 p.m.
LORD EBBISHAM: My Lords, may I first of all thank my noble friend for giving the approval of Her Majesty's Government to this Bill. I think it is

857
a very happy coincidence that we should be associated so soon after we have had other ceremonies taking place dm a rather different atmosphere. May I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, for his very kind references to my farther? The noble Lord has, I suppose, a longer and wider experience of local government than possibly anybody else in your Lordships' House. My memory goes back some 35 years to the time When my father was at the Mansion House, and I can remember the noble Lord coming there on a (number of occasions. I can also remember that he was gallant enough to dance with my sisters on a number of occasions—and they tell me that he was an extremely lively partner. It is, I think, a very happy thing that the noble Lord still retains that liveliness, which is such an asset and adds so much to the proceedings of your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord is not, perhaps, and never has been, a very great friend of the City, and it is perhaps only to be expected that I should take issue with him on one or two things which he said with regard to the City. He called the City narrow, and he also accused it of having no interest in the rest of London. I do not want to take up a lot of time, but I would remind the noble Lord that the City Corporation have over the years been, I should have said, the very opposite of this. Sixty or seventy years ago the Corporation had an eye to the future, towards open spaces for example. They purchased Burnham Beeches, they purchased Epping Forest; they purchased a number of other sites. I should have thought that was more far-seeing certainly than any local authority at that time, and a great many since. So that surely it could not be said from that point of view that they were narrow or had no interest in the rest of London. Shortly before the war the Corporation tried to start an airport of its own. That again, surely, was far-seeing. It was no fault of the Corporation that the site which they chose at Dagenham was not eventually chosen for the subsidiary London airport. So I do not think it can be truly said that those accusations which the noble Lord has made against the City can really be substantiated.
The noble Lord has asked some questions about various clauses. On
858
Clause 3, is it wise to give borrowing powers to a market which is in a rather awkward place? The Corporation have given a lot of thought to this. They have tried to find all sorts of other sites and nothing better has been discovered. Therefore, it is surely in the interests of Billingsgate Market, and of traders as well, that the existing Market should be improved as much as possible. On Clause 4 the noble Lord asked about rating. I think that my noble friend has covered that matter in his reply. The noble Lord talked about the question of whether it was proper that empty property should not bear the cost of the rates. I agree with the noble Lord that that is certainly an arguable point. But as conditions stand at present it is possible to be relieved of rates on empty property. Therefore surely in this instance the Corporation should be allowed to have what other people also have.
Then, on Clause 10, there was the question about the judges. I should have thought that that was common form. The clause provides that judges or justices should not be disqualified from the exercise of any jurisdiction under any enactment relating to the Corporation by reason of liability to any rate. This is a usual form. I understand, which is put in a great many Acts, and the Corporation have found it necessary to include it in a number of Acts of their own in recent years where they are acquiring, or seeking power to acquire, land, or constructing buildings. It was thought that it would be convenient to include a general clause of this nature in this Bill, rather than include it in Acts every time they came forward. In fact, I would remind the noble Lord that (I believe) the London County Council put a clause to this effect in all their Bills as well. Clause 11 has to do with the repeal of various enactments. Three sections of the City of London Sewers Act, 1848, dealing with the collection of rates by collectors are now out of date, and so far as the other items on that list are concerned these are consequent upon the provision of the clauses already referred to. I hope that these answers will satisfy the noble Lord; and, without further delay, I commend this Bill to your Lordships.
On Question. Bill read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported with-Amendments.
MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
  >TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO: APPOINTMENT OF OPPOSITION LEADER
  >TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO: APPOINTMENT OF OPPOSITION LEADER