Sitting of 8 April 1963

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

    Industrial Training
    Miss Quennellasked the Minister of Labour how many skilled, fit industrial workers were offered retraining courses in the last year and in the first half of this year at his Department's training centres; and what percentage of the unemployment totals this represents.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. John Hare): Offers of training or retraining courses to registrants for employment are required to be made by my local officers on all suitable occasions. Records of such offers are not kept.
    Miss Quennell: It is very difficult to understand how we can embark on a programme of training these skilled workers if these records are not kept. Will my right hon. Friend consider keeping them in future?
    Mr. Hare: I am not sure how practicable my hon. Friend is being. People are told about the opportunities that are available; they are interviewed a first time and a second time. They may make up their minds at first or they may wait a considerable time. I do not think that it would be practicable to do as my hon. Friend suggests.
    Miss Quennellasked the Minister of Labour how many Government training centres for apprentices are now operating; how many apprentice trainees are under going instruction in them; and what is their pupil-teacher ratio.
    Mr. Hare: Apprentices are trained at 14 Government training centres and two industrial rehabilitation units; 394
    888
    apprentices are at present being trained; and there is one instructor to 12 apprentices.
    Miss Quennell: Do my right hon. Friend's figures include those attending rehabilitation centres?
    Mr. Hare: No, I am answering on the number of apprentices who are attending Government training centres for these special first-year training courses.
    Mr. Lee: But does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, considering the needs, the figure is miserably low? What ideas has he for forcing firms that use skilled labour, but are quite unwilling either to join a joint scheme or do anything themselves, to play their full part in producing skilled labour for the nation?
    Mr. Hare: I shall be saying something about this later today, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well, the whole object of the first-year apprenticeship courses was to give demonstrations in all parts of the country of the real value that can be gained by good systematic training methods.
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Labour if he will now introduce legislation to implement the proposals on industrial training in his recent White Paper.
    Mr. Hare: Consultation with interested organisations has gone very well since the White Paper was published and is continuing. Legislation is being prepared and will be introduced as soon as the Parliamentary programme permits.
    Mr. Ridley: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on the White Paper, may I put in a plea that he should try to persuade the Leader of the House to include legislation in this Session's programme, because I believe that the urgency of this Measure is very great indeed?
    Mr. Hare: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course, I agree with him about the urgency of the matter, but we have to be fair. At this stage of the Session, there are many demands on the time of the House, but I should certainly like to see a Bill brought before the House as soon as is reasonably possible.
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Minister of Labour if he will now state his plans

    889
    for the expansion of industrial retraining facilities, including in particular his plans for the Nottingham area.
    Mr. Hare: I am announcing the details of the further expansion of training at Government training centres in today's debate. It is proposed to have one new centre in the county of Nottingham.
    Mr. Warbey: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he bear in mind the importance of ensuring that not only workers who are unemployed but also workers likely to become unemployed in such an industry as the hosiery industry have rapid opportunities for industrial retraining?
    Mr. Hare: I am intending to do a great deal to improve the existing arrangements for industrial retraining.
    Mr. Popplewell: In all the retraining schemes about which we hear so much and which we all welcome, what prospects are there for men after the Minister has retrained them? Is he ensuring, when they go through the retraining process, that there is a job as the end product?
    Mr. Hare: The whole object of my right hon. Friend's financial policy is to see that the economy expands and so creates new jobs. What I want to avoid is what happened when I took over my present office in 1960. Then firms which wished to go, for instance, to the North-East or to Scotland were not able to do so because of the lack of skilled labour in those areas.
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Minister of Labour if he will increase the number of industrial training centres in Scotland beyond that recommended in his recent White Paper.
    Mr. Hare: My recent White Paper is concerned with improvements in industrial training by a new system of co-operation between the Government and industry. It does not recommend an increase in the number of Government training centres, but I shall be announcing my plans for an expansion of Government training, including Scotland, in the debate today.
    Dr. Mabon: Is it not the case that the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister himself have
    890
    indicated that the number of training centres will not be increased under the right hon. Gentleman's proposals either in the White Paper or elsewhere? Is not that a very unsatisfactory situation in view of the number of contracting industries in Scotland which will demand a massive retraining effort if we are to re-employ everyone concerned?
    Mr. Hare: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself in patience, I shall be speaking about that subject in the debate very shortly.
    Dame Irene Ward: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that we might get forward more expeditiously and with greater enthusiasm in the training field, which is very essential, if we could be sure that the trade unionists concerned would permit the employment of the men who have been in training centres? Could not my right hon. Friend impress a little more on those who call for Government support that we expect support from both the employers and the trade unions in this very important matter?
    Mr. Hare: I certainly want the co-operation of both employers and trade unions.
    Mr. Lee: Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman is getting the co-operation of the trade unions? Can he name any union engaging in this field which is obstructing him in getting training facilities?
    Mr. Hare: There has been a good deal of local opposition to some of my proposals. I have said this in the House previously, and I believe that the hon. Gentleman knows that that is a fact.
    Sir W. Robson Brown: Can my right hon. Friend state what response he is getting from men who are suitable and available for training? Is he having a genuine and clear response from them?
    Mr. Hare: I am not quite sure what my hon. Friend means. Those who are being trained are coming forward willingly, and we are doing our best to place them in jobs.
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Labour what was the number of persons completing a Government-sponsored industrial training course in Lanarkshire during 1962; and what proportion of these was placed in regular employment.
    Mrs. Cullenasked the Minister of Labour how many persons completed a Government-sponsored industrial course in Glasgow in 1962; and what proportion of these was placed in regular employment.
    Mr. J. Bennettasked the Minister of Labour what was the number of persons completing a Government Industrial Training Course in Scotland in 1962; and what proportion of these were placed in employment.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. William Whitelaw): There is at present one training centre in Scotland, at Hillington, Glasgow. During 1962, 146 persons completed courses at this centre and 124 were placed in employment.
    Mr. Lawson: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this position is laughable when we have only one training scheme covering so few persons? Is is not absurd? Will he make sure that something far more than this is done to meet the problems that we are facing?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I hope the hon. Gentleman will listen carefully to what my right hon. Friend will have to say in his speech later today.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the figure he has given represents 0·1 per cent. of the unemployed in Scotland? Is is not absolutely ridiculous? Shall we have a statement from the Minister to say that the figure is to be multiplied by at least 100?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I think it would be much better for the hon. Gentleman to wait and hear what my right hon. Friend has to say later.

    Remploy Factory, Pontefract
    Mr. Harperasked the Minister of Labour if he will extend the Remploy factory at Pontefract so as to provide more employment for the area's disabled.
    Mr. Hare: No, Sir. Remploy provides for the severely disabled. The existing factory meets this need, and there are only five severely disabled persons unemployed at Pontefract.
    Mr. Harper: Is the Minister aware that the area covered by this Remploy
    892
    factory contains disabled workpeople of very high quality? As there is plenty of land contiguous to the present factory, will not he consider this extension?
    Mr. Hare: I will consider it, of course, and if I thought there was a substantial need I would look at it favourably. However, I have just given the hon. Member the figures.

    Rotherham
    Mr. D. Griffithsasked the Minister of Labour how many full-time and part-time unemployed signed on at the Rotherham Employment Exchange during December 1962, January 1963, February 1963, and up to the latest available date.
    Mr. Whitelaw: As the reply consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Griffiths: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for that statement, but is he aware that the situation is not half as pleasant as it is pictured? In Rotherham and Sheffield since 1960, thousands of men have not only been employed on a temporary basis but have also been on a three- or four-day week? Is he aware that, regardless of the North-East—serious and critical though things may be there—there is a very serious situation in the Sheffield and Rotherham area?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I certainly note what the hon. Gentleman says. I would not go quite as far as to say, as does the hon. Gentleman, that the situation is very serious, but I certainly appreciate the tone of what he said and will bear the point in mind.
    Mr. Griffiths: But is the hon. Gentleman aware that even in the last fortnight at least another hundred men from one firm alone have been placed on the redundancy list? Surely that is a serious matter.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I think that I responded to the hon. Gentleman by saying that it was a serious matter. There are certain places in South Yorkshire where the position is very serious—I would accept that—but the general picture is not very serious. I think that

    893
    We are prepared to agree position is "serious".
    Following is the information:

    ROTHERHAM EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE

    —

    Numbers wholly unemployed

    Numbers temporarily stopped

    Total

    10th December, 1962

    1,017

    289

    1,306

    14th January, 1963

    1,452

    437

    1,889

    11th February, 1963

    1,444

    594

    2,038

    11th March, 1963

    1,430

    386

    1,816

    Shift Working
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Labour what percentage of employees is on shift work.
    Mr. Hare: The latest available information is that derived from an inquiry carried out by my Department in 1954, and covering manufacturing and certain other industries. This showed that 12 per cent. of the manual workers in those industries were employed on shift work.
    Mr. Ridley: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that in capital-intensive industry this is a sure way of making ourselves more competitive and that our competitors in Europe are certainly doing better than that? Will my right hon. Friend suggest and implement ideas to increase the amount of shift working in the interest of our competitiveness?
    Mr. Hare: I agree that, in certain industries where continuous production is an essential pan of the process what my hon. Friend says is absolutely right. I will certainly take note of it.

    West Riding
    Mr. Ginsburgasked the Minister of Labour if he will undertake a study through the local employment exchanges of the distances travelled to and from work in the West Riding of Yorkshire; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hare: The very considerable amount of work involved in a comprehensive survey of this sort would not be justified, particularly since the Workplace Tables from the 1961 Census are now in course of preparation.
    Mr. Ginsburg: Would the Minister expedite this analysis from the Census? Is he aware that there is grave anxiety about the lack of new job opportunities in many parts of the West Riding? Is he aware that this fact compels people in many areas of the West Riding to have to travel excessive distances to obtain work of any kind?
    Mr. Hare: The hon. Member is right. There is a great deal of daily travel between numbers of places in the West Riding, in which his constituency lies, but, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has just said, although the unemployment rate for Yorkshire is below the national average, there are places in South Yorkshire where unemployment rates are high.
    Mr. Wainwright: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that many young girls travel 40 miles a day and spend two or three hours in a bus on the journey? Does he think that is right from a health point of view? Would the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that if this kind of labour stayed in its own district the unemployment figures would be terribly high in these areas?
    Mr. Hare: I am not unsympathetic to what the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg) and the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) have said, but we have to look at the country as a whole. There are other parts where the unemployment situation is a great deal more severe.

    Departmental Staff (Scotland)
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Labour what consideration is being given to the removal of his Department to Scotland.
    Mr. Hare: None, Sir. I do not intend to remove my Department to Scotland.
    Mr. Hamilton: Why not? Is there any good reason why the Ministry of Labour should not set a good example and move? In the interest of close personal contact between the right hon. Gentleman and his clients, would he not think that he should get nearer to those whom he is counting?
    Mr. Hare: I am not averse to Scotland. I have 2,800 of my staff in Scotland,

    895
    including my Scottish headquarters in Edinburgh, and further than that I am not prepared to go.

    Employment Exchanges, Scotland
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Labour how many new employment exchanges he proposes to open in Scotland in the next financial year; and how many will be opened in the first six months of 1963.
    Mr. Hare: I have no plans at present for opening new employment exchanges in Scotland in the next financial year. So far in 1963 I have opened one new employment exchange and three new sub-offices. I will, of course, consider opening additional local offices wherever a need is established.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is this part of the Government's plan to move offices out of London as far as possible?
    Mr. Hare: As I understood the question, the hon. Member wanted to know whether I proposed opening new employment exchanges. That is the question I have answered.

    Pontefract and Castleford
    Mr. Harperasked the Minister of Labour how many people are currently registered as unemployed at the Pontefract and Castleford employment ex changes in the West Riding of Yorkshire.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Six hundred and eighty-nine and 506, respectively, on 11th March.
    Mr. Harper: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that these figures are even higher than those for last month, when we were led to believe that they would go down because they were seasonal? In view of the fact that this constituency relies solely on coalmining, would the hon. Gentleman not look further into this matter and try to induce more industries to come into the area so that there may be fuller employment than there is at present?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I must correct the hon. Member. The figures fell between February and March. However, I note the point he has made and will certainly bear it in mind.

    Maltby and Dinnington
    Mr. D. Griffithsasked the Minister of Labour how many men and women were registering as unemployed at Maltby and Dinnington employment exchanges at the end of February 1963.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Figures are available only for the day of the count of those unemployed. On 11th March, 1963, 280 men and 142 women were registered as unemployed at Maltby and 144 men and 21 women at Dinnington.
    Mr. Griffiths: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the local authorities have repeatedly made every endeavour to get light industries to come into these areas? Is he aware that the two areas are basically occupied with mining and naturally there are difficulties in finding work for women? Could the hon. Gentleman's Department assist the local authorities to obtain light industries particularly in order to help the women?
    Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Member knows that the question of bringing light industries to an area is one for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. Nevertheless, I have noted what he has said, and I assure him that my right hon. Friend will also note it.
    Mr. Mendelson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that only the figures of people counted on a particular day are returned to his Department, which hides a great deal of serious short-time working in south Yorkshire? Is he aware that in the Sheffield area, which covers the industrial centre of Stocksbridge and Chapel-town, 10,000 are estimated to be either fully unemployed or on short-time, whereas the official figures given by him are much lower? Would the hon. Gentleman therefore not be complacent and not think that the situation in south Yorkshire is not a very serious one?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I assure the hon. Member that I am certainly not in any way complacent.

    Wool Textile Industry
    Mr. Ginsburgasked the Minister of Labour if, in the light of the estimate given by the wool textile industry of employment in the industry in 1966, published on page 124 of the National Economic Development Council's Report,

    897
    he will state his own estimate of employment in the industry in that year; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hare: No, Sir. I am not prepared to commit myself to a forecast of what the future level of employment in a particular industry will be.
    Mr. Ginsburg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the N.E.D.C. is quite categoric that employment in wool textiles will fall by 11,000 between 1961 and 1966? If that is an authoritative estimate, would the right hon. Gentleman give serious consideration to the need for new industries and new sources of employment in these parts of west Yorkshire which are overwhelmingly dependent on the wool textile industry for work?
    Mr. Hare: I am a member of the N.E.D.C. and I would point out that what it did was based on an assumption and not a forecast. The industry refused to forecast, and that is one of the main reasons why I gave the hon. Member the Answer I did.

    Hull
    Commander Purseyasked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number of unemployed people in Hull on 11th February 1963; what percentage this was of the insured population; and how many jobs have since been found for these people by his department.
    Mr. Whitelaw: In the Hull and Hessle area, 6,394 people were registered on 11th February, a rate of 4·1 per cent. Figures of the number of these who have been placed by our Department are not available, but I can tell the hon. and gallant Member that by 11th March the number registered as unemployed had fallen to 5,701 or 3·7 per cent.
    Commander Pursey: When will the Minister of Labour make a real drive against unemployment in Hull? What is gained by diverting work from Yorkshire and Hull to the North-East Coast and so increasing unemployment in Yorkshire and in Hull instead of reducing it in this Tory affluent society?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Despite what the hon. and gallant Member says, he knows very well that it is only right and fair to look at the country as a whole, and
    898
    that, of course, is what is being done. As for the drive against unemployment, I should have thought that the hon. and gallant Member had received a pretty quick answer to that from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Commander Purseyasked the Minister of Labour how many young persons are now registered as unemployed in Hull; how many school-leavers have failed to find employment since mid-1962; and what facilities, for which he is responsible, exist in Hull for the industrial or commercial training of unemployed youngsters.
    Mr. Whitelaw: On 11th March, 494 young persons were registered. Of 1,350 Christmas leavers 74, and of 3,800 summer leavers 6, have not so far entered employment. Our Department does not provide training courses at Hull, but young people may follow courses at colleges of further education which will prepare them for industry and commerce.
    Commander Pursey: Will the Minister of Labour co-ordinate the efforts of all the Government Departments concerned in order to solve the juvenile unemployment problem in Hull, either by training or by employment? Is not being one unemployed out of 1,000 as bad as being one employed out of 10,000 for the young individual who is to start his life in this country at this time on the dole?
    Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. and gallant Gentleman, having made his speech, might well be prepared to listen to what my right hon. Friend will have to say about training later this afternoon.

    Goole, Thorne and Knottingley
    Mr. Jegerasked the Minister of Labour how many registered disabled people are still unemployed in Goole, Thorne, and Knottingley, after rehabilitation or other training courses; and whether he is satisfied that prospective employers are adequately consulted before training courses are arranged.
    Mr. Hare: One registered disabled person is still unemployed after completing a course of training during the year ending February, 1963, and nine are unemployed after courses of industrial rehabilitation. One of the main purposes of a rehabilitation course is to decide

    899
    the type of occupation for which the person concerned is most suitable. Therefore, it is generally impracticable to consult prospective employers in advance.
    Mr. Jeger: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are cases in which local employers have undertaken to give training to disabled men if they were allowed to do so, but his Department has refused the offers and has sent the disabled men off on expensive residential training courses, after which they have been unemployed because the training has not been attuned to the local employment position?
    Mr. Hare: I will look into the general allegation which the hon. Gentleman makes. I have knowledge of one particular case concerning one of his constituents. The hon. Gentleman will remember that in that case the firm which had offered employment was taken over by another firm which moved its activities from the area.
    Mr. Jegerasked the Minister of Labour how many juveniles under the age of 18 are registered as unemployed in Goole, Thorne, and Knottingley; and what action is being taken to find employment for them.
    Mr. Hare: On 11th March, 33 in Goole, 81 in Thorne, and 49 in Pontefract, which includes Knottingley. The Youth Employment Service is making every effort to find them suitable work.
    Mr. Jeger: Is it not deplorable that these young people should start their adult life either receiving unemployment benefit or on National Assistance? Is not the Minister prepared to do something more to see that the adults of the future are trained during their fruitful years and do not spend their time in idleness drawing money in that way?
    Mr. Hare: We all agree with the sentiment which the hon. Gentleman expresses. It is a matter of great regret if any young person, boy or girl, cannot find employment after leaving school. As regards the attitude of the Government, the hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others of my colleagues are, with me, making a flat-out drive to deal with this important problem which affects the young as well as the old.

    Normanton
    Mr. A. Robertsasked the Minister of Labour what consideration he has given to the provision of juvenile and female employment in Normanton, Yorkshire.
    Mr. Whitelaw: The numbers wholly unemployed are relatively low but our local officers and the Youth Employment Service will continue to do all they can to find suitable jobs for those unemployed.
    Mr. Roberts: What steps is the Minister taking to create unemployment in the West Riding? If he is not taking steps to create unemployment, will he ask his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade why he is taking steps to cause unemployment in the West Riding of Yorkshire?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I am certainly not endeavouring to cause unemployment in the West Riding of Yorkshire. Exactly the opposite is the case. Notice of the obvious truth of this can be seen from the unemployment figures for juveniles in Normanton. On 11th March, there were 28 unemployed, which included 22 girls who were working short time. These 22 girls resumed full time working today.

    Rothwell
    Mr. A. Robertsasked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to provide female and juvenile employment in Rothwell, Yorkshire.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Unemployment in this area is not high, but our local officers and the Youth Employment Service will continue to make every effort to find suitable jobs for those unemployed.
    Mr. Roberts: Does the hon. Gentleman believe in the rational dispersal of population? Will he bear in mind the huge conurbations in Lancashire, the Midlands and the south-east of England when considering the setting up of new industries, and will he bear in mind that automation is coming about in the mining industry and that the next few years will certainly see a good deal of unemployment?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, I note all those points. It is fair to say, in regard to

    901
    Rothwell, that there are considerable employment opportunities in the Leeds and Wakefield areas, which are not far away.
    Mr. Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to give every opportunity to expanding industries in the West Riding?
    Mr. Whitelaw: That must be a question for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

    Railway Workers, Earlestown and Newton-le-Willows
    Mr. Leeasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the British Railways Viaduct Works, Earlestown, is due to close in 1964, with a loss of 1,800 jobs, and that it is now proposed to close both Earlestown and Newton-le-Willows railway stations; and what plans he has to absorb those who will be unemployed.
    Mr, Hare: I am aware of these closures, although I understand that the number of redundancies at the workshops will be somewhat lower than that suggested in the Question. The full facilities of my Department, including training where this is appropriate, will be available to workers seeking our help.

    Employment Exchange Area

    11th March, 1963

    12th March, 1962

    Number of Unemployed

    Percentage of Insured Employees

    Number of Unemployed

    Percentage of Insured Employees

    Hyde

    480

    2·2

    283

    1·3

    Stalybridge

    305

    2·9

    349

    3·3

    Ashton-under-Lyne (includes Dukinfield)

    899

    2·8

    827

    2·6

    Glossop (includes Longdendale and Tintwistle)

    155

    1·7

    36

    0·4

    Note.—Figures are available only for Employment Exchange areas.
    Mr. Blackburnasked the Minister of Labour how many young people under 18 years of age are unemployed in Hyde, Stalybridge, Dukinfield, Longdendale and Tintwistle, respectively; and what were the comparable figures for 1962.
    Mr. Whitelaw: On 11th March, 1963, 37 in Hyde, which includes Dukinfield, Longdendale and Tintwistle, and 14 in
    Mr. Lee: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Government's policy at present seems to be to make quite sure that my constituents have no work in Earlestown and then, by closing the stations, to make equally certain that they cannot get work outside Earlestown? Will he, therefore, impress upon the Minister of Transport the very large number of people in the towns which are dependent on the railways and the fact that there is no evidence that the Viaduct Works is not a very good paying proposition, and will he ask him to reverse the whole process?
    Mr. Hare: My right hon. Friend will, I know, note what the hon. Gentleman has said. I cannot, of course, prejudge his reply to it.

    Stalybridge and Hyde
    Mr. Blackburnasked the Minister of Labour if he will state the latest figures of unemployed in Hyde, Stalybridge, Dukinfield, Longdendale and Tintwistle, respectively; what proportion of the working population these figures represent; and what were the comparable figures for 1962.
    Mr. Whitelaw: As the reply consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    Stalybridge. In March, 1962, the figures were 9 for Hyde and 13 for Stalybridge.

    Kent
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Labour how many young people in Kent were unemployed at the latest convenient date; and what were the comparable figures in 1961 and 1962, respectively.
    Mr. Hare: 1,602 on 11th March, 1963; 882 in March, 1962, and 603 in March, 1961.
    Mr. Dodds: In his preoccupation with the depressed areas, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the serious deterioration which has taken place in Kent during the past few weeks, with young people staying on at school because they are unable to find work, with redundancies and with short-time working? Will he speak to the President of the Board of Trade and reconsider the policy to prevent industrial development in the South-East, which we agree was, up to a year ago or so ago, a land flowing with milk and honey but which, if it is not watched, could become a depressed area too?
    Mr. Hare: The hon. Gentleman is right when he says that it is taking longer to place young people this year than it did last year, but one should note that between February and March there was a 24 per cent. fall in the number of young people unemployed in Kent. I intend to redouble my efforts to see that these young people are placed in work.
    Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that, despite the general situation in the South, there are, particularly in the coastal towns, pockets of unemployment which is both chronic and, in some cases, even grave? Will he bear this in mind in his general approach to the question of unemployment?
    Mr. Hare: Yes, I certainly will.

    Remploy Limited, Glasgow
    Mr. Millanasked the Minister of Labour what is the total employment by Remploy Limited in Glasgow.
    Mr. Hare: One hundred and seventy-four severely disabled people.
    Mr. Millan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are no fewer than 2,400 registered disabled unemployed in Glasgow? Is it not about time that, as his contribution towards solving this problem of disabled unemployed, the right hon. Gentleman expanded the Remploy facilities in the City?
    Mr. Hare: I must correct the hon. Gentleman. There were 2,420 disabled people unemployed in the Glasgow area on 11th March of whom 138 were
    904
    severely disabled eligible for employment by Remploy.
    Mr. Lee: There was a time when Remploy facilities expanded rapidly. Because of the general unemployment situation, it is naturally harder for disabled people to obtain work. Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the whole policy of Remploy to find out whether it is appropriate that it should be expanded?
    Mr. Hare: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware of this, but last year I announced a considerable extension of the activities of Remploy.
    Mr. Millan: Even slightly disabled people in Glasgow have extreme difficulty in getting other employment. Some of these people have been unemployed for long periods. There is a need for expansion and a new policy.
    Mr. Hare: Not necessarily with Remploy. All this hinges on the main question of getting more industry into areas of high unemployment such as Glasgow. Once that happens we shall be able to absorb the disabled people whom the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

    Ashington and Morpeth
    Mr. Owenasked the Minister of Labour how many juveniles under 18 years of age are registered as unemployed at Ashington and Morpeth, Northumberland, respectively; and what is being done to find suitable employment for them.
    Mr. Whitelaw: On 11th March, 140 at Ashington and 57 at Morpeth. The Youth Employment Service is making every effort to find them suitable work.
    Mr. Owen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these figures would have been very much higher were it not for the fact that many young people are remaining at school? As we approach Easter, an increasing number of young people will be emerging from our schools and looking for work. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in this area a number of young people who signed on at the exchange in August last year are still waiting for work? Will he consider the possibility of utilising the excellent facilities of the Ashington Technical College and establish a training centre there so that these young people may have some hope for the future?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the hon. Gentleman says about young people staying on at school. Whatever may be the reason for it, that is a development which, in general terms, everyone welcomes. The hon. Gentleman said that some of last year's school leavers are still without a job. He is correct. At Ashington ten summer school leavers out of 326 have not yet found employment. However, that is not the case at Morpeth, where no summer school leavers are now registered. I note what the hon. Gentleman says about the utilisation of training facilities.
    Mr. Owenasked the Minister of Labour how many adult men and women are registered as unemployed at Ashington and Morpeth, Northumberland, respectively; and what is being done to find suitable employment for them.
    Mr. Whitelaw: 391 and 84, and 280 and 57, respectively, on 11th March. Our local officers are doing all they can by submitting unemployed workers to suitable vacancies.
    Mr. Owen: Here again a major local problem is evolving! As the hon. Gentleman must know, this is basically a mining area and we are integrated into the general unemployment problem of the North-East. There is no prospect, as far as one can see at the moment, of new industry developing in the area. Will the hon. Gentleman consult the President of the Board of Trade and press the importance of the sites now being prepared by the Ashington, Morpeth and Newbiggin local councils and see whether it is possible to get new industry into the area speedily in order to meet the requirements of these unemployed workers?
    Mr. Whitelaw: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, a clothing factory which will employ close to 400 workers is now being built in Ashington.

    Tees-side
    Dr. Brayasked the Minister of Labour whether he will pay the costs of training suitable unemployed boys as apprentices in areas of high unemployment, when, with the agreement of trade unions, firms have offered to train boys in excess of their own bona fide requirements; and if he will do so in particular on Tees-side, where such training places
    906
    have been on offer for six months and none has yet been filled.
    Mr. Hare: I have made financial assistance available through the Industrial Training Council for the promotion of a group training scheme by the North East Training Council based on the offer of training facilities by I.C.I. and other Tees-side firms. Certain firms have already agreed to participate in the scheme, and I hope more will do so in view of the further stimulus to trade announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Minister aware that he now has £10 million to spend on industrial training which he will have the greatest difficulty in doing unless he adopts unconventional measures in accord with the urgency of the present situation? Does not he feel that, where there are apprentice training facilities available, he should use them immediately?
    Mr. Hare: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is correct. I have up to £10 million allotted to me for the setting up of the industrial training boards, details of which I am discussing with industry at the moment.
    Mr. Bourne-Arton: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the generous provision made during these bulge years by the British Transport Commission for apprentice training at Darlington? Could he use the Commission as his agent for the very excellent over-provision which it is undertaking?
    Mr. Hare: I will certainly look at my hon. Friend's proposition, but I will pursue it without commitment.
    Mr. Jeger: Would the Minister extend this offer to firms in other areas, particularly in south Yorkshire? While the unemployment position there is not very serious, it is, as was admitted by the Parliamentary Secretary, serious in some places and very serious in others. The extension of this scheme from Tees-side to south Yorkshire might be of great help in dealing with the juvenile unemployment there.
    Mr. Hare: I am endeavouring to do all I can to encourage group apprenticeship training schemes. These still have a great part to play.

    Wales
    Mr. Morrisasked the Minister of Labour, what is the number of boys and girls unemployed in Wales, Glamorgan, Port Talbot and Glyncorrwg, and Porthcawl, at the most recent convenient date.
    Mr. Whitelaw: On 11th March, 4,257 in Wales, 2,178 in Glamorgan, 216 in Port Talbot and Glyncorrwg, and 291 in Bridgend, which includes Porthcawl.
    Mr. Morris: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that a substantial proportion of school leavers have no hope of employment for some months after leaving school, which is causing immense concern in Glamorgan? How much will the situation be aggravated by the Easter school leavers? Has the hon. Gentleman any idea as to how many of them will have to return to school because of the lack of unemployment?
    Mr. Whitelaw: One is bound to accept that placing has been slower than usual and slower than one would have liked. Nevertheless, substantial progress is being made. I very much hope that young people in Wales will benefit from improvements in the general employment situation resulting from the measures of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to expand the economy and to steer new industry into development districts.
    Mr. Morris: Does the Parliamentary Secretary really think that a reduction from 236 to 216 in three months is substantial progress.
    Mr. Whitelaw: What I said was that progress was being made in all these areas, and that is true.

    Linoleum Industry, Kirkcaldy
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Minister of Labour how many persons were employed in the linoleum industry in Kirkcaldy in March, 1960, 1961, 1962, and 1963, respectively.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Figures are available only for the combined areas of the Kirkcaldy and Leslie Employment Exchanges and for the mid-year. Four thousand four hundred were employed in 1960, 4,000 in 1961 and 3,800 in 1962. Figures for 1963 are not available.
    Mr. Gourlay: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this rate of contraction is causing serious difficulty, particularly in the Kirkcaldy area? Is he also aware that between now and August this year a further 600 people will lose their jobs in the linoleum industry in Kirkcaldy as a result of the transfer of a productive unit from Kirkcaldy to Staines, in the South? What proposals does the hon. Gentleman's Department have for finding alternative employment for the 600 people who will become redundant, bearing in mind that our rate of unemployment at the moment is 8 per cent. and will go up to about 11 per cent.?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I recognise, as the hon. Gentleman indicates, that it is unfortunate for an area with so high a level of unemployment that this work should cease. As the hon. Gentleman will be the first to appreciate, we have no power to prevent the firm from taking this decision. It must be a matter for its own commercial judgment, particularly since no question of an industrial development certificate is involved. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall do all we can to help any of the people affected who seek our assistance. I hope that the measures of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to expand the economy will help us to provide fresh opportunities.

    Greenock
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Minister of Labour how many persons under 18 years of age were registered as unemployed at the Greenock Employment Exchange at the latest convenient date; and for what periods they have been unemployed.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Two hundred and forty on 11th March, 1963. An analysis of this figure by duration of unemployment is not available for March. At mid-January 61 per cent. of unemployed boys and girls had been unemployed up to 8 weeks, 14 per cent. for 8 to 13 weeks and 25 per cent. over 13 weeks.
    Dr. Mabon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am becoming very frightened about how to put down this kind of Question from time to time because the situation gradually deteriorates, and it is quite deplorable? Has he thought of using

    909
    auxiliary training centres for these younger people in order to give them a useful occupation while they are awaiting employment?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the hon. Gentleman says and will certainly consider it. At the same time, I do not see why he should be frightened to table such Questions. Nor could I agree with him that the position is deteriorating. Of 1,247 boys and girls who left school last year, only 16 were still registered in March. I could not agree that that represents a deterioration in the position.
    Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman ought to be ashamed. That is a very slick answer, and it is very wrong.

    Clyde Shipbuilding (Dispute)
    Mr. Millanasked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to help bring about a resumption of work at the Linthouse shipyard of Alex Stephens and Son, Limited, where 2,700 men have been suspended because of an industrial dispute.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Labour if he has taken note of the trade dispute as Messrs. Stephens shipyard in the division of the honourable Member for Govan, and the large-scale suspension of workers which has ensued; if he will inquire into the causes of the dispute; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hare: My officers have had discussions with representatives of the Electrical Trades Union and the Clyde Shipbuilders Association to see whether there is any scope for them to help bring about a settlement. The general Secretary of the union has told me that the executive of the union has now instructed its members on unofficial strike to return to work so that their claims can be dealt with through the proper channels. My officers will continue to hold themselves available to help.
    Mr. Millan: Would the right hon. Gentleman, apart from having discussions with the Electrical Trades Union, keep in mind that there are 2,700 men not in dispute with their employers who have been suspended? Will he use his good offices to try to get these men back to work?
    Mr. Hare: I will look into the point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. The whole problem is that the men affected in this unofficial dispute are holding up production, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that it would be quite wrong for me to try to interfere in an unofficial strike when the official union leaders have asked the men to go back to work.
    Mr. Millan: I am not asking the right hon. Gentleman to intervene in an unofficial strike. Does he not see the point? I am suggesting that he might intervene with regard to the very much larger number of men who are not on strike but have been suspended for a fortnight and, if the deadlock is not broken, look as if they may be suspended for very much longer?
    Mr. Hare: I will look into it and see what can be done.

    Disabled Persons, Scotland
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Minister of Labour how many disabled persons in Fife were registered under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, at the latest available date; and what proportion of these was unemployed.
    Mr. J. Robertsonasked the Minister of Labour how many disabled persons in Renfrewshire were registered under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, at the latest available date; and what proportion of these was unemployed.
    Mr. J. Hillasked the Minister of Labour how many disabled persons in the Lothians were registered under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, at the latest available date; and what proportion of these was unemployed.
    Mr. Steeleasked the Minister of Labour how many disabled persons in Dunbartonshire were registered under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, at the latest convenient date; and what proportion of these was unemployed.
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Labour what number of disabled per sons in Lanarkshire were registered under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, at the latest convenient

    911
    date; and what proportion of these was unemployed.
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Labour how many disabled persons in Aberdeen were registered under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, at the latest convenient date; and what proportion of these was unemployed.
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Minister of Labour how many disabled persons in Dundee were registered under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, at the latest convenient date; and what proportion of these was unemployed.
    Mr. Oswaldasked the Minister of Labour how many disabled persons in Edinburgh were registered under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, at the latest convenient date; and what proportion of these was unemployed.
    Mr. Willisasked the Minister of Labour how many disabled persons in the Highland counties of Scotland were registered under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, at the latest available date; and what proportion of these was unemployed.
    Mr. Hare: On 15th October, 1962, in the area covered by these Questions, there was a total of 41,067 on the disabled persons register. On 11th March, 1963, the 5,492 disabled persons registered as unemployed represented 13·4 per cent. of that total. As the information concerning individual areas consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Gourlay: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that 13 per cent. is rather a high figure of disabled persons unemployed? As many able-bodied persons in Scotland are unemployed, will he make stronger efforts to ensure that employers take a fair share of the number of disabled persons who are on the register?
    Mr. Hare: On the whole, employers are doing their best to take their proper proportion. What is needed is more
    912
    jobs and more new firms in order to do this. This is precisely the programme on which the Government have embarked.
    Mr. Lawson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the very fact that he does not give the answers to the Questions orally suggest that in some of the areas the percentage unemployment must be very much higher than 13? Since he cannot meet the problem of the able-bodied unemployed by the measures which have so far been taken, will he take extraordinary measures to deal with these persons?
    Mr. Hare: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not mean what he said. I am not trying to hide the truth. It will all be in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow. As there are 109 Questions on the Order Paper, I thought that, for the convenience of the House, it was right to deal with the Questions in this way.
    Mr. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figures that he has given indicate an appalling measure of sheer human misery and frustration because many of the men have been unemployed for a very long period? Would he not at least consider that in those places where there are Remploy factories, their operations should be extended?
    Mr. Hare: I am considering the whole time what can best be done to meet the problem. By far the best thing, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree, is the provision of more jobs in new and expanding industries going to the areas of high unemployment.
    Mr. Lee: To return to the supplementary question about Remploy factories, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot look at the situation nationally, would he look at the situation in the areas referred to by my hon. Friends in their Questions and see whether he can extend the Remploy facilities in places where the unemployment percentage is as high as has been mentioned?
    Mr. Hare: I have already, I think, covered the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. Remploy deals only with the severely disabled, whereas the

    913
    Question as tabled deals with the wider field of the disabled as a whole.
    Following is the information required:

    —

    Number of disabled persons registered under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944 on 15th October, 1962

    Number of disabled persons registered as unemployed on 11th March, 1963, as a percentage of Col. (2)

    (1)

    (2)

    (3)

    Highland Counties

    1,900

    18·7 per cent.

    Fife

    3,716

    15·1 per cent.

    Renfrewshire

    4,277

    15·3 per cent.

    The Lothians

    8,599

    10·8 per cent.

    Dunbartonshire

    2,370

    14·0 per cent.

    Lanarkshire*

    5,647

    14·8 per cent.

    Aberdeen

    4,117

    16·1 per cent.

    Dundee

    3,849

    14·8 per cent.

    Edinburgh

    6,592

    9·0 per cent.

    * Excluding Glasgow.

    Highland Area
    Mr. McInnesasked the Minister of Labour how many persons were unemployed in the Highland area at the latest available date.
    Mr. Hare: There were 6,451 persons registered as unemployed on 13th March, 1962, and 8,284 on 11th March, 1963.
    Mr. McInnes: Does the Minister recognise that this is a remarkable increase in unemployment in this area? Will he take steps to ensure that more jobs and more new industry are brought into the Highland area?
    Mr. Hare: Yes, certainly. We are doing ail we can to encourage industrial expansion in this area and in other areas of high unemployment.
    Mr. Ross: How will the loss of railway lines in this area help industrial expansion there?
    Mr. Hare: That is a matter which, obviously, will have to be discussed. The recent announcement of the Fort William pulp mill, however, will be of considerable assistance to the area.

    Ford Motor Factory, Doncaster
    Mr. Mendelsonasked the Minister of Labour what steps he is now taking
    914
    to ensure that alternative employment will be available for employees declared redundant at the Ford Motor factory at Doncaster, in view of the announcement by the company on 1st April that 800 men would be dismissed on Friday, 28th June this year.
    Mr. Hare: My local officers have already made arrangements to interview, at the factory, all workers who seek our help. The full facilities of my Department will, of course, be available.
    Mr. Mendelson: Is the Minister aware that at about roughly the same time as he was assuring the House last week that no decision about this factory had been finally come to an official statement was being typed in the offices of the Ford Motor Company announcing the dismissal on 28th June of 800 workers employed at the plant? In view of this, can the Minister say why, in a matter of this seriousness, his communications are so faulty as to let him almost mislead the House from comprehending the real situation and to cause Members themselves to dig for the facts that he should have given to the House? Will he give an assurance that he will take serious steps to see that the problem is immediately dealt with, because it is now more urgent than he indicated last week?
    Mr. Hare: I am glad that the hon. Member made it clear that I was not trying to mislead the House; I certainly was not. I understand that there is as yet no final decision as to whether this factory should be continued in use by the company for some other purpose. I am not certain about the amount of employment offered; that will depend upon the decision. As I have already informed my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who represents the constituency, I will certainly do all I can to see that if and when men are made redundant the services of my Ministry are made available to try to give them alternative work.
    Mr. Mendelson: Is the Minister now saying that the company, which was helped by the Government to build a new factory in another part of the country, is not keeping in touch with the Government and not informing the Minister before making a serious announcement of this kind? If that is the situation,

    915
    will not the right hon. Gentleman ensure that he is brought into consultation at an early stage?
    Mr. Hare: Certainly, in view of what the hon. Member has said, I will ascertain the facts and figures and will act upon them.

    Brixton
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Labour how many persons at the last count were registered as unemployed at the Brixton Employment Exchange; and what the corresponding figure was last year.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Four thousand and forty-four on 11th March, 1963, and 2,821 on 12th March, 1962.
    Mr. Lipton: Whilst it is difficult to get the Parliamentary Secretary to agree to anything, will he at least agree that this represents a substantial increase in unemployment which is, no doubt, shared by quite a number of other exchanges in the London area where there are more than 4,000 registered unemployed? Will he at least see that efforts are made to make people realise that London is almost as much a depressed area as other parts of the country and do something to stop the population drifting towards London?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I think the hon. Member knows that I am always prepared to agree with any statement which is accurate. At the same time, the figures would not support the hon. Member's contention, because in March unemployment in the Greater London area was 1·7 per cent.
    Mr. D. Smith: Contrary to what the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) has said, would my hon. Friend agree that the employment position generally in the London area has been well maintained over this last difficult period? Furthermore, cannot we now look forward to a further substantial reduction in the overall unemployment situation when the figures are announced later this month?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I should never like to anticipate what the position might be when figures are announced in the future, but I would certainly be prepared to agree with much of what my hon. Friend has said.

  VISAS (RUSSIANS)
  Mr. Fellasked the Lord Privy Seal the average time taken to grant a visa to visit the United Kingdom to Russians wishing to visit this country for trade purposes.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas): For visas granted during the month of March, eleven days.
  Mr. Fell: Does my hon. Friend agree that our trade with Russia and with any other country with whom we can trade is vital to the future of this country? Will he try at least to ensure that the time is cut down to as short a period as possible?
  Mr. Thomas: The scrutiny of applications is completed as quickly as security and other considerations permit. Priority is given to applications for trade or for any other purpose where they are known to be urgent.

  ANGLO-EGYPTIAN AGREEMENT (COLONEL STATHER)
  Mr. Turtonasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement about the unusual delay in the repayment to Colonel Stather of Stockton Lane, York, of the bank balance seized by the Egyptian Government in 1956 and due to him under the terms of the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement.
  Mr. P. Thomas: The first £E1,000 of this transfer has now been paid and a cheque for the sterling equivalent (£821 13s. 8d.) has been sent to Colonel Stather. The transfer of a further £2,421 17s. 2d. has also been authorised and is in process of payment.
  Mr. Turton: In view of the long series of mischances that have meant a great delay in the repayment to Colonel Stather of his money, is my hon. Friend aware that there has been a serious loss of exchange? Is there any way in which Colonel Stather can recover this loss through the delay which has been caused?
  Mr. Thomas: No, Sir. The rate used for transfers is the current rate and the difference is not compensable.

  SPAIN (MADRID COURT TRIALS)
  Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Lord Privy Seal why the British Embassy in Madrid have ceased sending representatives to attend political trials in the capital.
  Mr. P. Thomas: Her Majesty's Ambassador came to the conclusion that this was not necessary, because other sources of information are available.
  Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that the American Embassy in Madrid continues regularly to send a representative to those political trials and that this is considered to have a restraining effect? Will he, therefore, consider the continuation of our former practice, which would help towards securing justice in these cases?
  Mr. Thomas: The reason why somebody was available was to report upon what took place. As I have said, other sources, such as the Press, enable the Embassy to report adequately on trials, as, indeed, on other Spanish internal matters.
  Mr. Allaun: Surely, if it is considered that the American Embassy's representative is helpful towards securing justice, would not our representative similarly be regarded? Is the hon. Gentleman aware, for example, that the correspondent of The Times has attended sixty-one trials in seven weeks in one court in Madrid? There is, therefore, plenty to watch.
  Mr. Thomas: The Press attends these trials and, therefore, full information is received by the Embassy. It is not thought that the presence of somebody from the Embassy would alter the situation one way or the other.

  U.S.S.R. (STEEL PIPES)
  Mr. Skeetasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will publish the terms of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation injunction forbidding the export of large diameter pipe to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; if he will specify the member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation who agree therewith; and if he will give the actual terms of Her Majesty's Government's reservations.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): No, Sir. Her Majesty's Government are not in a position to publish the texts of confidential North Atlantic Treaty Organisation decisions. Nor are they in a position to disclose any reservations which may have been attached to them by member Governments.
  Mr. Skeet: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Herr von Hase indicated that, while certain reservations were made by several countries early in the peace, all nations concurred in the ultimate decision that large diameter pipes ought not to be exported to the Soviet Union? Would it not be wise in these circumstances to have the unanimous verdict of N.A.T.O.?
  Mr. Heath: Our position is clearly known and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade informed the House about it recently.
  Mr. Rankinasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting with the United States Under-Secretary of State on the sale of steel pipes to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
  Mr. Heath: East-West trade was one of the subjects which I was able to discuss with Mr. Ball during his visit to Europe. The value of such discussions would, however, be greatly reduced unless their confidential character were respected.
  Mr. Rankin: In view of the widespread comment which has been made on what would appear to be the interference by the United States of America in a trade which is regarded as legitimate, would not the right hon. Gentleman give us a little more information than he has just given? Did the United States Undersecretary of State oppose this steel-pipes treaty between Britain and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?
  Mr. Heath: There was no question of interference by the United States Administration. This is one of the subjects which it is perfectly legitimate for allies to discuss together. Her Majesty's Government position remains exactly as I have stated it.

COMMUNIST COUNTRIES (TOURISTS)
Mr. Mayhew69. Mr. Mayhew asked the Lord Privy Seal what measures he now proposes increasing the flow of visitors to Great

919
Britain from Communist countries; and to what extent this flow is checked by shortage of sterling.
Mr. P. Thomas: We should welcome an increase in tourist exchanges between the United Kingdom and communist countries but no special measures appear to be required on our part to facilitate this. We do not consider that shortage of sterling is a serious impediment to the development of tourism.
Mr. Mayhew: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the very sharp falling off of tourism, particularly from the Soviet Union last year? Will he, in the case of genuine tourists, students and others wishing to visit this country from Iron Curtain countries, look into the possibility of making sterling available in view of the political advantages of these visits?
Mr. Thomas: I agree that there was a sharp fall in the number of Soviet tourists to this country last year. I expressed disappointment at this decline to Mr. Romanovsky, leader of the Soviet Delegation at the recent Anglo-Soviet cultural negotiations. He said that the decline was due to the Soviet Government's shortage of foreign exchange. But the Russians have a substantial sterling surplus in their trade with the United Kingdom.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): With permission, I should like to make a short business statement.
Tomorrow, Tuesday, 9th April, my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will make a statement on points of law raised on Tuesday, 26th March, in relation to the case of Chief Enahoro, and on Wednesday, 10th April, before entering upon consideration of the Bills
920
already announced for that day, the adjourned debate on the case of Chief Enahoro will be brought to a conclusion.
Mr. H. Wilson: The debate on Chief Enahoro will inevitably take some time. Do the Government intend to proceed after that debate with all the business announced last Thursday as set down for Wednesday? Is the right hon. Gentleman now hoping to get in half a day what, last week, he thought would require a whole day?
While all of us wish to facilitate the Fort William Pulp and Paper Mill Bill, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that it might be better if he made that Bill second Order after the Enahoro debate and not come to any too optimistic a conclusion about how long will be required for the rest of the business?
Mr. Macleod: I will be glad to consider the suggestion that I make the Fort William Pulp and Paper Mill Bill the second Order. Clearly, the main business will be to dispose of the debate on Chief Enahoro. I am not wildly optimistic about getting all the business that we had put down for Wednesday.

BILL PRESENTED
  REMUNERATION OF TEACHERS
  Bill to empower the Minister of Education to make provision by order (otherwise than in accordance with section 89 of the Education Act, 1944) with respect to the remuneration of teachers; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Sir Edward Boyle; supported by Mr. R. A. Butler, Mr. Iain Macleod, Sir Keith Joseph, Mr. Boyd-Carpenter, and Mr. Christopher Chataway; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 95.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  WAYS AND MEANS
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 4th April].
  [Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

  WAYS AND MEANS

    AMENDMENT OF THE LAW
    Question again proposed,
    That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the national debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance, so, however, that this Resolution shall not extend to making amendments of the enactments relating to purchase tax so as to give relief from tax, other than amendments making the same provision for chargeable goods of whatever description or for all goods to which any of the several rates of tax at present applies.

  BUDGET RESOLUTIONS AND ECONOMIC SITUATION
  3.34 p.m.
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. John Hare): I think that it is unusual for the Minister of Labour to intervene in a Budget debate, but I want to take this opportunity to concentrate on some of the human problems involved in securing the object of this Budget. This, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has explained, quite simply is to secure expansion without inflation. Critics so far seem to be divided into two schools. One group says that this is an electioneering Budget and the other group says that it is too cautious. These criticisms obviously cancel one another out.
  In fact, this is a bold and imaginative Budget. It also constitutes an act of faith. It can only fully succeed if the nation takes full advantage of the opportunities which it offers. To secure the target of a 4 per cent. growth, my right hon. Friend has readily admitted that it must be for the Government to give a lead, and in the measures which he has both already taken and now proposes in the Budget the Government are giving this lead. But its success must depend on the preparedness of management and unions to make their own contribution.
  922
  The human problems which I want to refer to are: first, the present high levels of regional unemployment; secondly, the need to provide more far reaching provision to deal with the problems of redundancy; and, thirdly, the need not only to provide more opportunities for the retraining of adults but to revolutionise our existing training measures to fit the requirements of a modernised industrial Britain.
  A major factor in causing high regional unemployment has been the contraction of some of our older industries—coalmining and shipbuilding, in particular. There is no short cut to the solution of this problem. The only answer is greater diversification by the attraction of new firms and industries to the development districts. These districts must get a larger share of the growth industries which, in the main, have been concentrating themselves in the Midlands and the South.
  The March unemployment figures show this only too clearly. In the London and south eastern region, the rate of unemployment is 1·8 per cent. In the Northern Region it is 6 per cent. In Scotland, it is 5·7 per cent. In Northern Ireland, it is 9·3 per cent. In Great Britain, the percentage rate of unemployment for all development districts is 7·7 per cent. as against 3·1 per cent. for the whole country.
  We are determined to alleviate, on the one hand, the frustration, human misery and social injustice of unemployment which the figures show, and, on the other, to achieve a proper, and far fuller, use of our available manpower.
  When we consider how the Government are tackling this, the Budget must be looked at together with the already extensive measures which the Chancellor has taken to stimulate the economy. Together, all this should add up to well over £400 million in the current financial year.
  First, there are the broad, economic measures to take up the slack in the economy as a whole. These have been enumerated already and I do not wish to waste the Committee's time by repetition.
  Next, there is the programme to build up the infrastructure in the difficult employment areas such as Scotland, the North-East and Northern Ireland.

  923
  I want to mention a few examples in Scotland. There is the £4½ million Tay Road Bridge, the £2½ million additional road works, the £6½ million on electricity transmission and distribution—adding up to over £20 million of additional capital expenditure announced in recent weeks, over and above the normal programme. In addition, there was the Chancellor's announcement on Wednesday of the decision to go ahead with the Fort William Pulp and Paper Mill.
  Examples in the North-East are the increased authorisation of local authority spending on housing and education, £12 million on roads, which is double last year's figure, naval orders of £10 million, two cargo vessels for Ghana, financed by Government loan and to be built on the Tyne, and the Lackenby Dock scheme, announced on Wednesday by my right hon. Friend.
  In Northern Ireland, in addition to the increased public investment, the estimated expenditure on the development of industry was about £9 million two years ago, was raised to £13 million last year, and is to go up to £15 million this year.
  We now come to the two Budget proposals designed to increase further the attraction of the development districts to industry as a whole.
  Mr. Walter Monslow: It is true that there are development districts where there is a high percentage of unemployment. In my own area the figure is approximately 7 per cent. and we have no development status. Do I understand that the facilities extended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be applicable to such areas as mine, although they have not development district status?
  Mr. Hare: I shall be attempting to deal with the point which the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I know that it is of general concern.
  I was saying that there are two Budget proposals designed to increase the attraction of all development districts irrespective of the part of the country in which they are. First, there is the alteration in the existing arrangements of the Local Employment Act. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade explained these in detail on Thursday. I shall not elaborate on them,
  924
  but in my view they will make the Act more generous, more predictable and, I think, simpler in its operation.
  The second of these proposals is a revolutionary one. It is the Chancellor's powerful proposal for tax incentives for the free depreciation of new plant and machinery. Here, as the Committee will realise, my right hon. Friend is breaking entirely new ground. These proposals are bound to encourage the expansion and modernisation of all firms already within these areas, and, at the same time, they will be immesely advantageous to the newcomers whom we wish to attract to those districts.
  Some people—the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Monslow) is one—feel that the intention to link these provisions to existing development districts is too rigid, and will lead to uneven development in immediately adjacent communities. There is, of course a problem here. There is always a problem when a clear line has to be drawn. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted this on Wednesday, when he said:
  "The greater the assistance given to special districts, the greater will be the differentiation between those inside and those just outside the boundary. This is inevitable. But if the scheme is to succeed the boundaries must be clearly established and then firmly accepted, and I invite the co-operation of the Committee in meeting this necessary condition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April, 1963; Vol. 675, c. 483.]
  It is obvious that the more widely the available jam is spread the less we shall be able to concentrate assistance within the worst areas of high unemployment. On the other hand, as I indicated in an earlier debate, the growth point concept has its attractions. As the Committee knows, the Government are making a study of regional problems. This applies particularly to Scotland and the North-East. These studies will throw light on whether any changes in the policy which has been presented are necessary, but the fact that the advantages of certain areas are being increased is in itself no reason for altering the boundaries—
  Mr. Douglas Jay Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North) rose—
  Mr. Hare: I think that this is relevant to the right hon. Gentleman's proposed interruption. My right hon. Friends the

  925
  Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade will certainly consider arguments that right hon. and hon. Members wish to put forward.
  Mr. Jay: Can the Minister tell the Committee—the President of the Board of Trade did not know on Thursday—whether this concession applies to agriculture?
  Mr. Hare: No, it does not.
  Dame Irene Ward: May I interrupt? May I ask whether my right hon. Friend will now comment on the statement made by Lord Hailsham that he does not consider that the boundaries of the development district in the North-East are satisfactory? Has my right hon. Friend yet heard what alteration is proposed for the North-East Coast?
  Mr. Hare: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) will be able to make her contribution to the debate.
  Dame Irene Ward: I shall certainly try.
  Mr. Hare: I have said that both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade are prepared to consider arguments that; are put to them. Regional studies affecting both Scotland and the North-East are going on and this point will be considered.
  There is also the extensive programme of advance factories of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. As he stated in the debate on Thursday, he proposes to build a number of small advance factories in areas of high unemployment to follow on after the factories, announced last year, which are now in the process of being built.
  My right hon. Friend has authorised me to say that there will be six new factories in the North of England. These will be at Aycliffe, Blyth, Stockton-on-Tees, West Auckland, West Hartlepool and Workington. Five factories will be built in Scotland. There will be one each at Port Glasgow, Kilwinning and the Calders and two in the Fraserburgh and Peterhead area. In Wales, there will be two factories which will be in the Milford Haven area and in the Bangor area. All
  926
  these factories will be of about 10,000 sq. ft. each, with the exceptions that the two factories in the Fraserburgh and Peterhead area will be 7,500 sq. ft., that at Kilwinning 15,000 sq. ft. and that in the Milford Haven area 20,000 sq. ft.
  What I have said so far should give the Committee a reasonably clear picture of the formidable battery of measures that the Government are producing to improve the balance of regional employment.
  I wish now to say a word about the problem of redundancy. It is obvious that a rate of growth of 4 per cent. means more rapid change in the economy. As a result, some firms will grow, and there will be substantial movement of labour to the expanding industries. At the same time, the importance of other industries and firms will be less and their need for labour will decline. There will be workers whose skills and experiences are no longer needed in their former occupations.
  It is against this background, that as the Chancellor explained, we intend to tackle the problem of redundancy vigorously in the next few months with a view to the publication of proposals and, if necessary, the introduction of legislation in the autumn. We shall, of course, do this in consultation with the employers and trade unions. We announced our intention of improving arrangements for dealing with redundancy last summer. Immediately following that, my Ministry carried out a detailed survey of existing arrangements not only in this country, but abroad.
  This information I first discussed in January with the representatives of the British Employers' Confederation, the Trades Union Congress and the boards of the nationalised industries on my National Joint Advisory Council. At that meeting the three parties and the Government agreed to make a more detailed study of all the aspects of the subject and we shall be renewing our discussions at the next meeting of the Council this month.
  We shall have, first, to decide what the aims of an effective policy for redundancy should be. There seem to me to be three main considerations. First—this is very important—to avoid unnecessary redundancy by careful planning. Secondly, to do all we can to find redundant workers

  927
  new jobs as quickly as possible. Thirdly, to reduce the hardship which may arise for workers who have to change their jobs.
  This is not merely a question of giving redundant workers compensation or severance pay. The problem, as I am sure the Committee will agree, is very much wider. We must aim to get more systematic forward planning of manpower requirements in industry so that it will be possible to keep redundancies to the absolute minimum by sensible recruitment and retirement policies and by transfer and retraining within a particular firm. Workers concerned must be given proper advance warning and notice so that they have the fullest chance to find a new job.
  We are laying down minimum periods of notice in the Contracts of Employment Bill. These will represent a major step forward for many millions of workers and are important to our future plans for dealing with redundancy. The Bill, which is at present in Standing Committee upstairs, is, however, only a first step in improving status and security at work. It lays down minimum standards and deals with formal notice, not the longer advance warning of redundancy which should be given.
  Advance warning should be given not only to the workers affected and their representatives, but also to my Ministry. This is often done now when there are large-scale redundancies, but only too often not. The practice should be extended and it should become quite automatic. This is important, not only so that the ordinary employment services of the Ministry can make their full contribution, but so that the best use can be made of the training facilities and of the other special services which we are in a position to give.
  Finally, there is the need to reduce hardship which may arise for workers who are redundant. The question of financial provision when a worker loses his job through redundancy is obviously a difficult one, but I should like to put one or two considerations to the Committee.
  Should there not be financial compensation to a worker when he loses his job after long service, when his prospects of finding new work may be reduced? Is
  928
  not a man justified in feeling that he deserves special consideration when he finds that industry no longer needs the skill he has learned and practised for years or the knowledge and experience he has gained through years of service? I think that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee agree that the answer to those questions is yes, but the problem is, how? Progress is being made on a voluntary basis, but only about 15 per cent., or one in six, of workers in manufacturing industry are believed to be covered by schemes, which, in any case, vary considerably. I do not believe that redundancy payments on a purely voluntary basis will be comprehensive in the foreseeable future.
  Some people—I am glad to see the hop. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) in his place, because he is one of them and he has been very consistent in this—have suggested that a duty should be placed by law on each individual employer to give redundancy or severance payments of a defined amount based on length of service, but I think that he knows that there are snags. How reasonable or practicable is his solution?
  If the redundancy is caused by the introduction of new methods which will increase the efficiency and profitability of the firm, it can be argued that the employer should compensate those workers who are no longer needed. I do not think that we would argue about that, but, if the dismissals are caused by a fall in demand for the products of the firm, the cost may arise at a time when the firm can least afford it.
  Mr. John Hynd: Does that mean that the Minister is considering legislation to cover those cases where he says it would be fully justified?
  Mr. Hare: I want to develop my theme. I am studying all the various aspects of the problem and putting forward some of the arguments, suggestions and solutions which have been put forward in this House and outside.
  Another school of thought argues that the cost of compensation payments should be funded and for this purpose suggests redundancy schemes on an industry-by-industry basis. The chief criticism against this is that the main burden would inevitably fall on the contracting industries, whereas it is the growing industries which

  929
  will most benefit from the removal of resistance to change and from increased mobility of labour.
  Therefore, there are others who advocate a national redundancy scheme. Should this prove to be the answer, I am quite certain that the Government should not simply take over from industry the responsibilities and obligations which are an essential part of the relations between employers and their workpeople. Redundancy schemes are one part of the wider employment policies of management which vitally affect industrial relations.
  Mr. John Diamond: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. Does he appreciate, however, that in everything he is now saying, and in what the Chancellor said, there is implicit that the Government have accepted the need for some kind of severance payment? What he is now considering is the method, who should bear it, should it be funded, and so on, but not the principle. Are the Government accepting the principle that there should be some kind of severance payment?
  Mr. Hare: I think that there should be some form of redundancy scheme, but what I cannot say. What it would be most unwise for me to do would be to prejudge the shape this would take, until I have had further discussions with the interested parties.
  Mr. Richard Marsh: Will the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We are entitled to heat what the right hon. Gentleman has to say, although he has taken long enough to say it. All the arguments that the Minister has put up about redundancy agreements relate to private firms and would not seem to arise in Government employment. Is there any reason why the Government cannot have an overall redundancy scheme for Government employees?
  Mr. Hare: I shall be able to answer the hon. Member's question a great deal better when I have made further progress with these consultations. I am sorry if he thinks that I am taking too long—
  Mr. Marsh: Not today.
  Mr. Hare: I will get on with my speech. I have tried to put some of the questions which I shall be discussing with industry during the coming weeks.
  Mr. George Jeger Mr. George Jeger (Goole)rose—
  Mr. Hare: I have already been rebuked for taking too long and many hon. Members wish to speak in this debate.
  I turn now to the question of training. My right hon. Friend announced on Wednesday that he proposed to make further substantial sums available to enable the facilities in Government training centres to be doubled and that he would allocate up to £10 million as a start for the establishment of the new industrial training boards.
  We have at present 13 Government training centres. They are widely spread over the country, giving training in a variety of trades of importance to the economy as a whole.
  Last December, I informed the House that we were opening three new centres, two in Scotland and one in County Durham, and that we were also enlarging the existing centre in Glasgow. I now propose to open a further 15 new centres and also, to enlarge some of the existing centres.
  This expansion will be distributed throughout the country, but more than half the additional training capacity will be sited in Scotland and the north of England. More skilled labour of the right kind is required there if we are to be successful in attracting new industries. It is in areas such as Scotland and the north of England also that the problem of redundancy in older industries is particularly acute.
  There are thus to be 18 new centres, the three already announced and the further 15 I have just mentioned.
  I shall tell the Committee where, subject to the necessary negotiations, these 18 centres should go. Six will be in Scotland—in Motherwell, Dunfermline, Glasgow (in addition to the existing centre at Hillington), Dumbarton, Irvine and Greenock. Two will be in the North-East, at Tursdale, near Durham, and at Middlesbrough. There will also be considerable expansion of the existing centre at Felling, near Newcastle. In Lancashire, there are to be three new centres at

  931
  Blackburn, Liverpool and Wigan, and in Yorkshire two, at Hull and Sheffield. In addition, I intend to reopen the centre at Long Eaton, in Nottinghamshire, put one centre at Llanelly, in West Wales, one in Gloucester, one at Southampton, and one in the London area, at Stratford.
  The effect of this expansion will be that the present capacity will be more than doubled. When the new centres are in full operation about 5,000 additional men will be trained annually—the bulk of them in engineering and building trades in which the need is obviously most acute and where shortages of labour over long periods since the war have been most hampering to our economic efficiency.
  As hon. Members know, I have met with some opposition from the trade unions in my plans to expand training in areas of high unemployment. I come to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth. I wish to be fair about this. Both the trade union members of N.E.D.C. and the General Council of the T.U.C. have accepted the need for the Government to extend their training facilities. Therefore, the opposition has come mainly from local union organisations. I and every other Member in the Committee appreciate that they have to consider very carefully how the particular interests of their members will be affected, but in doing so surely it would be disastrous if a narrow, short-term attitude was adopted. Expansion, I believe, is on the way. It would be a tragedy if areas of high unemployment failed to get their full share because trained labour was not available for industries wishing to come to them.
  I am also going to expand the first-year apprentice classes in some Government training centres. These, I feel, have very successfully demonstrated the value of giving systematic full-time training to apprentices during their first year, and great tributes have been paid to them by both the employers and trade unions. We are also, through the Industrial Training Council, continuing to give all the assistance we can to group apprenticeship schemes.
  These are all valuable initiatives, but side by side with them I am pressing ahead with the scheme for a fundamental improvement in the country's industrial training arrangements which was
  932
  announced in the White Paper of last December. I am glad to see that those proposals have been widely welcomed. My Department is now having detailed discussions with the British Employers' Confederation, the T.U.C., and the nationalised industries, and we are getting the maximum co-operation from each one of them. We have also started discussions with the two industries which, from the point of view of training, stand out, I think, as of particular importance, namely engineering and construction. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Education have had similar consultations with organisations in the educational world.
  A new era in industrial training is at hand, and I think that, working together and armed with adequate financial resources—and my right hon. Friend has started me off well—employers, trade unions, the educational world and the Government can, I am convinced, bring about a revolutionary change in our attitude and methods. I believe that our industrial efficiency, as a result of this, will be markedly increased.
  But I should like to warn the Committee that there is a danger. With the best will in the world we cannot get this new system going overnight. There has got to be legislation; boards have got to be appointed, and they have got to work out their plans and launch their plans. The danger, of course, is that in the meantime employers and trade unions may take the line, "Oh, well, a new system is on the way. We can sit back and wait for the new boards to put things right."
  Nothing would be worse than this. Take, for instance, the five-year period of apprenticeship. It is true that the construction industry has led the way by recommending a four-year apprenticeship to its regions, but other industries have done nothing. I am certain in most cases the five-year period should be abolished. It really is of the utmost importance to the success of the new plans that employers should begin now to face up to these problems and to improve and develop their training plans, and, at the same time, that unions co-operate to the full with the employers in making them a success.
  Sir Gerald Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend permit an

  933
  intervention from this side? This is a very fine and platitudinous statement about employers and unions, but will my right hon. Friend not add a third partner in this? The period of apprenticeship, notably in the engineering industries, still depends most largely on the co-operation of the Ministry of Education and the progress and increase of technical training colleges. If the Ministry of Education is brought into the picture and gives dynamic aid we may be able to reduce the period of apprenticeship.
  Mr. Hare: My hon. Friend accuses me of being platitudinous, but perhaps he did not hear me say that the whole educational world has to be brought into this partnership in this new deal for apprentice training. I have kept the Committee for quite a time and I have touched on the three human aspects I said I would.
  Mr. Francis Noel-Baker Mr. Francis Noel-Baker (Swindon)rose—
  Mr. Hare: No, I have kept the Committee quite a long time and I cannot give way.
  In conclusion, I should like to add this. The Committee will undoubtedly recognise that what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is doing fits in with the whole concept of the 4 per cent. growth per annum which those of us who are members of the National Economic Development Council have accepted. I am delighted to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) in his place, because I do not think that he has been given anywhere near the credit he should, as the creator of N.E.D.C.
  Mr. Jeger: By the Prime Minister?
  Mr. Hare: But few will deny that all three partners in N.E.D.C. must accept the need for a national incomes policy if we are to overcome what is quite clearly one of the main obstacles to growth. What I am saying is that the Chancellor, in this Budget, has courageously broken out of the vicious circle which he himself described as the "chicken and egg problem":
  "Without expansion we cannot have an incomes policy, and without an incomes policy we cannot have expansion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April, 1963; Vol. 675, c. 476.]
  934
  In so far as they are concerned, the Government are carrying out their part of the bargain.
  4.7 p.m.
  Mr. Thomas Fraser: The Minister of Labour, in the early part of his speech, made it clear that he intended to talk quite a bit of the difficulties of the areas which suffer from a very high level of unemployment. He ended his speech by saying that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) had not got sufficient credit for the success of the policies which he launched.
  Well, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Wirral and his colleagues who are now praising him might take note that those policies of restriction were imposed indiscriminately, almost two years ago, those parts of the country which then had a high level of unemployment have suffered the brunt of the contraction which has taken place since and now have a level of unemployment higher than anything that we have reached since before the Second World War—and that is going back quite a long time.
  It is the difficulties which have arisen in those areas and which have arisen very largely from the policies put into effect almost two years ago by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Wirral which had led the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring forward some proposals for the amendment of the Local Employment Act.
  The Chancellor said that the Government would have to consider further whether they should amend the system of listing districts to get the benefit of the Act so that we might deal with a larger area, but that there would be difficulties about this, and that a study was being made and a decision would be made later. The truth is that the Chancellor, when he was President of the Board of Trade and he introduced the Local Employment Bill at the end of 1959, or the beginning of 1960, made a very great mistake. He decided to repeal the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, and the subsequent amending legislation to get away from the whole conception of the better distribution of industry throughout the country and, instead, to turn to the

  935
  problem of unemployment in certain localities.
  That is why the new Bill was called the Local Employment Bill, and why the President of the Board of Trade, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer then was, decided to get rid of the system by which, in an Act of Parliament, scheduled areas were to be given the advantages of the distribution of industry legislation, and to replace it by a list which would be drawn up by the President of the Board of Trade from time to time identifying individual localities to be benefited. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows full well what we said about his proposals when the Measure was passing through the House. He will remember the discussions on Second and Third Reading and on the Amendments proposed by the Opposition.
  Everyone who makes any study of the difficulties of these areas now knows that, even without amendment of the Local Employment Act, the listing of unemployment localities in the present spotty way is quite ridiculous, and also knows that when the new policies announced by the Chancellor on Wednesday are put into effect, the position will be even more ridiculous.
  I mention the areas which I know best, and I think of parts of Scotland. In Renfrewshire, there are many towns which are listed and which may get the benefit of the new proposals, but the town of Paisley, alongside the great Rootes factory, happens not to be listed.
  The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): It has not been descheduled.
  Mr. Fraser: I do not understand the President of the Board of Trade. The benefits of the Local Employment Act are not at present given to Paisley because it is not listed. Is that not right?
  Mr. Erroll: No further assistance is being rendered to projects in the Paisley area, but it will be eligible for free depreciation.
  Mr. Fraser: Apparently, therefore, it is to be eligible for one of the Chancellor's two new proposals, but not both. I listened to the Chancellor and to the President of the Board of Trade attentively, but it did not seem to me from
  936
  what either said that there were to be towns which were to get the benefit of one of the proposals, namely, free depreciation, but not the other, which was that most calculated to encourage new industry to the area, or the development of industry already in the area.
  This will obviously be a further complication with which we will have to deal when the Bill is presented. Will Kilmarnock be treated like Paisley, or is it to be a town in which the new incentives to development will not be available, although other towns around Kilmarnock will have the advantages of the new inducements? Is that to be the position?
  Mr. Erroll: Without having a map before me, I think that Kilmarnock is not a development district.
  Mr. Fraser: This is the point. The same sort of thing will happen in the north-east of England, where there will be towns inside and outside the listed areas. Swansea is not listed, while nearby areas are.
  This makes nonsense of the idea of tackling the problem on any kind of regional basis, but the Minister of Labour suggested that the Government might have to tackle the problem on a regional basis, as Lord Hailsham has been making clear in his examination of the problems of the North-East. It all runs right back to the Government's great mistake immediately after the 1959 General Election, when they replaced the Distribution of Industry Act by the Local Employment Act.
  The right hon. Gentleman told us about the new advance factories which are to be built and most of which are to be of 10,000 sq. ft. The President of the Board of Trade will be able to tell us how many people are normally employed in a factory of 10,000 sq. ft. and the ratio of employment for 1,000 sq. ft. of factory space provided by the Board of Trade. The last time I asked him the question the answer was 1·7, which means that there would be an average of 17 workers per factory in factories of 10,000 sq. ft.
  Sir G. Nabarro: In engineering, the average is just over 1 per cent., so that a factory of 10,000 sq. ft. in that industry would mean work for about 100 workers.
  Mr. Fraser: I am not sure that the hon. Member has got it right. I was dealing with factories provided by the Board of Trade, and the last time I asked the question the answer was that the ratio of employment in the Board's factories was 1·7 workers per 1,000 sq. ft. of factory space. Even if there are three workers per 1,000 sq. ft., which is nearly double the average number, there are still only 30 workers in a factory of 10,000 sq. ft. We must take that into account to get into perspective the contribution to the solution of unemployment which this proposal will make in areas where there are 50,000 or 60,000 unemployed.
  Mr. Diamond: Would not my hon. Friend agree that not only is it an insignificant contribution, but that a factory of that size might be so uneconomic as to be a waste of money?
  Mr. Fraser: That is quite possible. I recognise that there is a place for small factories of 10,000 sq. ft. I have seen a lot of useful development with small factories in my own area. The East Kilbride Corporation, in Lanarkshire, has made a noticeable contribution to the well-being of that area by building small "nest" factories of 10,000 sq. ft. I am not criticising the Government for building these factories, which, I think, are very desirable, but I am asking the Committee to get the matter into perspective and not to be too carried away with the possibilities of employment provided by a factory of 10,000 sq. ft. in an area of 50,000 or 60,000 unemployed.
  The right hon. Gentleman spoke about redundancy and severance pay and hoped that legislation would be forthcoming, but perhaps it would be better if I passed by that subject for the moment.
  The right hon. Gentleman told us that there were to be 15 new training centres, in addition to the two in Scotland and the one in Durham, already announced. He made it clear that more than half were to be in the North-East and in Scotland. Very properly, he told us about the attitude of the trade unions to the setting up of these training centres, but hon. Members may not appreciate why the unions are somewhat chary about this proposal.
  It so happens that we have been through all this before. It is more than thirty years since I retrained at a Minis-
  938
  try of Labour Training Centre. At that time, more than half of the insured workers in Lanarkshire were on the dole. There was no shortage of tutors in all the skills, because so many were unemployed. We were learning one another's skills, but there were no jobs for us after we had been retrained. If the Government just go on increasing the number of training centres in areas where there is large-scale unemployment, they will find, as we found, that the new skills in which the workers are retrained are skills already surplus in those areas, that they have unemployed skilled men going into the training centres to teach other unemployed skilled men a new skill.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Reginald Maudling): Is it not also true that in a number of cases there is the difficulty of employing people who are unskilled or semi-skilled because there is a shortage of highly skilled people in the same area?
  Mr. Fraser: That is so. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer realises that in every one of the areas of high unemployment skilled workers are moving out week after week and month after month. The right hon. Gentleman knows that when there is a shortage of skilled workers in Luton personnel managers are sent to Glasgow to consult the Ministry of Labour officers there so that highly skilled workers can be recruited from Renfrewshire, Aberdeen-shire, Glasgow, Lanarkshire, and the surrounding areas.
  I am not saying that we must not have these training centres. In the complex industrial society in which we live it is essential for our well-being that workers whose skills become surplus to requirements should be trained in new skills to enable them to take up other jobs. I am not against training centres, but I am trying to rationalise the objections of the trade unions to them, and the Government must recognise that in those areas of high unemployment, in which more than half these new training centres are to be sited, it is essential that new employments are created to provide employment for these men when they are trained and thus ensure that after being trained they do not take their skills to a job in the south.

  939
  The Minister of Labour knows that for many years workers, after being trained at Hillington, have boarded a train at Glasgow, Central, for Euston, and thence to somewhere in the South. We do not want this process to continue. It is estimated that Scotland loses about 25,000 to 30,000 of her population by migration annually, and we have only kept our high unemployment figure down to its present level—and the figure is now 125,000—by the export of our workers to other parts of Britain.
  I say no more now about the training measures for young people, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, not because they are not important—I consider them to be of the greatest importance—but because this is not a matter which naturally comes into a discussion of the Budget proposals which are now before the Committee. In any case, legislation will be introduced on this subject and we can discuss it in greater detail then.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when talking about making use of human resources, said:
  "It is the availability of manpower, and especially of skilled manpower, that sets the limit to our capacity to increase production."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April, 1963; Vol. 675, c. 477.]
  That is true in theory, but, in practice, it is manifestly untrue. In Scotland and Northern Ireland there are human resources which have not been mobilised for many years. It therefore follows that we have not reached the limit of our resources there, and the same can be said for most of the north of England and, to a large extent, Wales.
  One of the limiting factors in recent years has been the concentration of effort in too small an area of the country—the concentration of effort in the Midlands, London, and the South-East. There is no doubt that if growth industry had been better distributed throughout the country, we would have kept highly skilled personnel, the technologists and the technicians, in some of the areas of high unemployment, and we would have taken into industry in those areas a large labour force which does not sign on at the various employment exchanges.
  The last time I looked at the figures for the run-down of jobs in Scotland I saw that we dropped by about 48,000
  940
  jobs, while the Ministry of Labour recruited only 24,000 people. Thus, 24,000 people simply disappeared. Again, if one considers the proportion of women at work in the South and the Midlands, one sees that the figure is very much higher than that in the north of England, in Scotland, in Wales, and in Northern Ireland. If the Government were to get a proper distribution of industry policy going they would mobilise resources which, at present, are not mobilised, and they would thus increase our capacity to increase production.
  The President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed that the Local Employment Act had been a great success. I can only say that the prescription offered in the Act has not effected a cure. The patient is worse than he was, but he is still alive, and so the Government say that the prescription has been successful. It may be that the fault lies in the Government's diagnosis being wrong in those areas of high unemployment. This applies to all the development districts, or all the areas as I prefer to call them, in which there is a high level of unemployment and in which there is a high proportion of older industries, some of which are declining and in all of which manpower is being considerably reduced because of technological developments which are taking place.
  These are the areas which have not attracted new growth industries this century, and if we continue to deal with them as we have done in the past, that is, by trying to spill into them a little overspill from the growth areas in the South, we shall continue to find that in these older basic industries we shed male labour, but increase the number of women and girls employed in the new industries brought into the area. If the Minister of Labour looks at the statistics, he will find that in all these areas the number of males employed has decreased over the last ten years, while the number of females employed has increased. He may find that, nationally, there has been a net increase in employment, but the number of employed males has decreased.
  The other point about these areas which depend on the older industries is that because no new growth industries have gone to them there is no demand for the scientifically trained manpower coming out of our universities. In Scotland, for

  941
  example, more than half the science and engineering graduates never find jobs there. We do not get the new industries which call for their skills in research and development work. All the new design work is done in the South. The result is that only the simplest work is done in the development districts, and the educated manpower there is not sucked into industries that are being spilled there by the Local Employment Act.
  If that is true, as I know it to be, it seems to be fairly obvious that if we are to deal with the problem of harnessing the human resources of this country in the interests of the whole population, there has to be a different approach to the whole subject of the distribution of industry.
  The Chancellor, in his Budget speech, said something in explanation to those of his hon. Friends who want to see the duty on fuel oil removed. He said that, if he did that, it would make matters too difficult at present for the National Coal Board. He knows that very considerable financial burdens have been imposed on the Board over the years, burdens which would not have been put on any privately-owned industry.
  The Coal Board, for a great many years, was not allowed to charge for its coal even the cost of production. The Government decided the level of coal prices, so the Board was obliged to make losses. From time to time it could not even meet its running costs out of income, and it most certainly could not meet the cost of capital investment out of revenue. It had, therefore, to borrow very heavily for all its capital investment, and was obliged to meet a loss of £70 million on imports of American coal.
  The Coal Board now has outstanding borrowings of a little more than £900 million, on which it is paying interest of £42 million to £43 million a year. Half of that burden ought not to be lying on the Board. If the Chancellor were to agree to a capital reconstruction of the Coal Board so that, on behalf of the taxpayer, he might take that part of the burden which properly belongs to the taxpayer, the Board might be in a position fairly to meet any competition that comes along.
  I say to the right hon. Gentleman that without capital reconstruction of the
  942
  Coal Board he must certainly not proceed to remove the duty on fuel oil. We should also be reminded that we do not spend any scarce exchange on procuring coal in this country. It does not make very much foreign exchange, but it does not cost us anything.
  In the Report of the National Economic Development Council, page 69, table 40, we see that imports of oil in 1961 cost us £483 million, that our exports of oil earned £93 million and that the balance of trade on oil was minus £390 million. By 1963, at the current rate of expansion, the Council tells us that our imports of oil would cost £589 million and that our exports would be down to £57 million, giving us a balance on oil of minus £532 million. This is quite a lot of money. There is something to be said for affording a little protection to the coal mining industry, which provides 70 per cent. of our energy requirements.
  The Coal Board, up to now, has never asked for protection, but only not to be laid open to unfair competition. Every other industry basic to the well-being of this country is protected. On behalf of some industrialists, who want to see the duty on fuel oil removed, we must not remove it without having a look at the consequences. The National Union of Manufacturers and the Federation of British Industries have been recognising the unfair imposition that was put on the Coal Board by its being denied the right to charge the proper prices for coal for a number of years.
  At present, consumers of coal, judging by the White Paper on the Financial and Economic Obligation of Nationalised Industries, published in April, 1961, say that the consumers of coal are paying a higher price than they ought to pay, and there ought to be a capital reconstruction of the industry. It is claimed that if we can get capital reconstruction of the industry, the Government could then see their way to take away the duty on fuel oil and all industry would then benefit from having a lower cost fuel, but I say to the Chancellor that he must not get rid of the fuel oil duty without first doing something to assist the coal mining industry.
  The Chancellor's new measures to help the unemployment areas are free depreciation, particularly in connection with

  943
  the building of new plant and the clearing of derelict sites. I have been told that free depreciation means a great deal to industrialists. I am not an accountant, and I do not know how much it will add up to, but I was amused by the President of the Board of Trade tailing us the other day what a benefit it would be to the industrialist who was able to write the whole thing off in twelve months. I have met a good many Scottish industrialists over the years, but none of them who could give me a picture of the economics of his undertaking led me to believe that he could write off 100 per cent. of the cost of establishing himself from the profits of one year's operations.
  In any case, it is a change in the law by which they can write off more rapidly than a seven-year period. They will not be able to write off any more, but they can do it more quickly and this will be of benefit to them. I do not know to what extent this will be of help to them, but I welcome the change. I have advocated that there should be tax concessions but I think that it should have been by means of giving a more generous investment allowance in the unemployment areas than in other parts of the country. I welcome what has been done, but I am not sure that it will be sufficient to change the attitude in those parts of the country.
  The second change is the fixed percentage grant for buildings and plant. Twenty-five per cent. of the cost of the buildings appears to many hon. Members to be a very generous offer. I ask them to remember, and I ask, in particular, the President of the Board of Trade to note, that the Board of Trade will be building factories, the economic rent of which will be 5s. or 6s. per sq. ft. I think that he will agree that he is offering these factories to industrialists at a rental of less than 3s. per sq. ft. Industrialists are not readily taking up these factories—not as readily as we would like them to do.
  If an industrialist takes up a factory which has been built by the Board of Trade, he will be paying about half the economic rent of the factory and getting assistance equal to 50 per cent. grant towards the cost of providing the building in which he carries on his industry.
  Mr. Maudling: That is already provided.
  Mr. William Ross: They are not taking it up.
  Mr. Fraser: The point is that industrialists are not coming into these areas at the rate which we would all of us, including the Chancellor, like them to do. All I am asking is: let us get the 25 per cent. building grant into perspective. It may not be more generous than what is available to industry at present. It is a great inducement to industry which is already there—a challenge to the industrialists already established in those areas who have not been expanding in recent years. We shall see what advantage they take of this new offer.
  There is a 10 per cent. grant for plant. The Chancellor made it clear that we should have a new Act of Parliament to deal with these things, although I had not thought it necessary to have a new Act of Parliament. The Chancellor has power to make grants and loans under existing legislation. I do not know to what extent his new proposals will be sufficient to attract the right kind of industry to these unemployment areas. I am glad that these steps are being taken, but I am not sure that they will be a success because of some other things which the President of the Board of Trade said.
  I come next to the Chancellor's proposals about the clearing of derelict sites. He said that there would be an increase to 85 per cent. and 95 per cent.—depending on whether rate deficiency grant is attracted—of the cost to local authorities of clearing derelict sites. He should know full well that for five or six years after the war the then Government gave those authorities 100 per cent. grants for the clearing of derelict sites, but the Chancellor knows what happened after he wrote Section 5 into the Local Employment Act, 1960. An assessment was made of the area of derelict land in Scotland. There were 15,000 acres of derelict land in Scotland. In three years of the operation of the Local Employment Act, 11 acres have been cleared.
  There is to be a slight increase now in the Government's assistance towards the clearing of these sites, but is not the Chancellor aware that when he wrote the Local Employment Act, 1960, before he gave the local authorities power to clear

  945
  derelict land, he gave the Board of Trade power to do so. Section 5(2) of that Act gives the Board of Trade power to clear derelict sites. Why is the President of the Board of Trade not clearing derelict sites?
  Complaints are being made from all parts of the Committee about the burden of rates. We have learned that to deal with a short-term high level of unemployment in the development districts the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Scotland are permitting local authorities to proceed with schemes of public works which cost less than £15,000, provided that they can do them within six months starting on 31st March, 1963.
  A great many local authorities have stretched themselves to the limit in taking over this additional work. When we ask that some particular road scheme should be proceeded with, the appropriate Minister always tell us that the local authorities have not the technical stall available to do the work which we think that they should be doing. But, willy nilly, the Chancellor says that we shall get the derelict sites cleared by giving the local authorities power to clear them with a higher rate of grant, provided that they have proposals in during the next nine months. Why nine months? After that we are to return to the lower percentage rates.
  Does not the Chancellor know that his Ministerial colleagues tell us that the technical staff of local authorities are stretched to their limit? In any case, if local authorities are unable to do it, why does not the President of the Board of Trade do it? Surely the solution of the unemployment problem is more the responsibility of the Government than of the local authorities. In local authority areas where there is a high level of unemployment the rate burden probably bears more heavily on the ratepayers than in other parts of the country where they are a little more prosperous.
  I put it to the Committee that the Chancellor and the President of the board of Trade ought to look again at the Act, and, in particular, to look at Section 5 of the 1960 Act. They should themselves get on with the job of clearing sites and getting them ready for the industry which we all hope to attract into these areas.
  The President of the Board of Trade
  946
  also said that he would carry through a tough I.D.C. policy. I have listened to many Presidents of the Board of Trade talking about the way in which they administered the I.D.C. policy. Every one of them always insisted that he was being as tough as possible, but when we went to see him on a deputation he said that he would be even tougher in the future.
  The President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have made it clear to us that no matter how tough they are, if the industrialist is also tough, he will get his I.D.C. at the end of the day. We were told that the new Ford development at Basildon would employ no more new labour. Three years ago, when we were referring to this £10 million project, the President of the Board of Trade said that Ford's would not employ any more labour. But when we have a £5 million motorcar project in another part of the country we are told that it will employ thousands of workers. Ministers have genuinely misled themselves in the matter.
  Let hon. Members look at the digest published by the Board of Trade on industrial buildings in the course of erection. Where are they going up? In the areas of congestion and not in the unemployment areas. It is no good saying that the President of the Board of Trade is being successfully tough with his I.D.C. policy when we see that he is not.
  The right hon. Gentleman told us about a meeting with the chairmen of 100 expanding industries. At first, we thought that he himself would meet them, but apparently this is not so. We do not know who will meet the chairmen of the 100 expanding industries, nor do we know whether they are 100 chairmen of expanding industries or half-a-dozen men who are chairmen of 100 expanding industries.
  Presumably the President of the Board of Trade will seek to persuade the chairmen of these expanding industries that it would be a good investment for them to go into the areas of high unemployment. But what if these chairmen say, "No, thank you"? Do we then do nothing for the areas of high unemployment? Is there any possibility of the Government turning to public enterprise to fill the bill? I think that a good example is the Fort William pulp and

  947
  paper mill project. The Chancellor told us in his Budget speech that the Government would make a loan of £10 million to Wiggins Teape & Company to build this paper mill at Fort William.
  The Committee should know that the Government have been considering this for many years. On 2nd July, 1959, I urged the construction of this mill, and the present Secretary of State for Scotland, who was then a quite new private Member for Argyll, supported the plea for the pulp mill at once. Now we are to have it, but in the last two or three years there have been negotiations with four of the big pulp and paper companies. Three of them dropped out of the race and discontinued negotiations. One of them stayed on, and that one is to have a loan of £10 million from the Government to construct the mill. What if Wiggins Teape had dropped out, too? Would there have been no pulp and paper mill because private enterprise was not willing to build it? We should still have the trees in the north of Scotland and the demand for paper, but we should not have had the pulp and paper mill if there had not been a private enterprise firm willing to build it even with public money.
  There are so many more examples of that type. Surely they convince us that, if private enterprise will not do a job which in the national interests should be done, the Government have a duty to step in with public enterprise.
  We have been told over and over again how dependent for our well-being we are on exports. We are probably more dependent than any other major country. This really means that we are more dependent for our well-being on making the maximum use of our human resources than is any other country. The President of the Board of Trade now knows what the expanding industries are, because he is to invite the chairmen of 100 of them to meet him or his representative. The Government should now make up their minds that the expansion which they know must take place if the country is to be saved will take place in those parts of the country where labour is available and where new work is needed.
  Let them by all means encourage private enterprise firms and businesses to
  948
  go into those areas and do the work. Let them offer the inducements mentioned by the Chancellor of Exchequer the other day. But if they do not go, that does not mean, or ought not to mean, that those areas should not be saved and that the human resources of those parts of the country should not be mobilised in the nation's interests. The Government should create the appropriate public enterprise to do the job.
  Anyone who reads the N.E.D.C. Report, who recognises and accepts the 4 per cent. rate of growth, and looks back at what has happened over the past ten years, will see that we have now got into such a sorry mess that if we get only a 4 per cent. rate of growth it will not be enough on current policies to squeeze expanding industries out of the Midlands and the South into the areas of unemployment.
  We ought and the Government ought to recognise this. They should plan real expansion of production. They should plan where the expansion is to take place. In that way, and in that way only, shall we solve the problems of those areas in the north of Britain and in Northern Ireland—the other nation. Only in that way shall we allow that other nation to play its part with the rest of the United Kingdom in the development of the economy in the interests of all of us.
  4.52 p.m.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I welcome the approach my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour indicated in his speech today to redundancy problems and also the steps he mentioned to increase training capacity and reduce the period of apprenticeship. I rather agree with the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), as I think that most people agree, about the over-concentration of industry in certain parts of the country and the lack of balance. One aspect of this problem was put to me very forcibly the other day by an industrialist with factories both north and south of a line drawn from Preston to Grimsby, not to be too specific. He said that in the southern area there was much more changing of jobs between factories and that diminished efficiency and meant that time spent by management on building up team work within individual factories was often wasted. He said that in the northern area the situation was quite different, for the

  949
  obvious reason that there were fewer other jobs to go to, but also, partly because of character, there was much less tendency to change jobs and, therefore, much less time wasted by management. I believe that this is the case. It is a matter which should be a considerable practical inducement to industrialists to go North to areas of higher unemployment.
  Instead of dealing with the matters raised today in detail, I want to talk more about the general background. I think that is still very important to areas of high unemployment, whether one thinks that the trouble is structural or both structural and cyclical.
  I want to begin by asking the indulgence of the Committee for a species of maiden speech, because in nearly eighteen years' membership of the House of Commons this is the first time I have spoken as a back bencher from this side of the Chamber. I am now experiencing the physical disadvantages. I have not got the physical prop, the solid structure, which I used to have in front of me. However, I now have my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro).
  Last Sunday week the Sunday Express had a page setting twenty questions to test the political potential of aspirants to political careers. Under the supervision of my daughter I answered the questions conscientiously and I got 61 marks. The citation for that marking was as follows:
  "Do not despair. You would make a charming back bencher, a pillar of your party, and you would bask in the absent-minded smile of your leader."
  However that may be, in these discussions on the Budget and the economic situation, so far there have been two debates, one on the 1962 Budget and one on the 1963 Budget. I will deal, first, with the debate on the 1962 Budget, which received a certain amount of criticism. I want to mention some figures resulting from that Budget. The revenue was £4 million below the estimate—£6,794 million compared with £6,798 million. I think that to be a remarkable piece of estimating. Expenditure above the line was £76 million more than estimated. Expenditure below the line was £88 million less. In the result, we met all Government current expenditure out
  950
  of revenue and nearly 85 per cent. of the Government's below the line liabilities.
  I listened rather wryly to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) talking about the way we had world leadership in exports at the turn of the century. I rather suspect that financial experts of that time would not have been quite so disparaging about the facts which I have just set out, at all events as a statement of accounts. The hon. Gentleman very much castigated me for the errors in forecasting. He said that the forecasts had been completely out. I think that it is pretty fair effrontery for right hon. and hon. Members opposite to talk about mistakes and errors in forecasting, because they were wildly out, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, in most of theirs.
  I remember that the Economic Survey for 1948 said this:
  "Because we are a country dependent for its existence on international trade many of the factors governing our economic development are quite beyond the effective influence of the planner and wide deviations from even the plans most recently drawn up are therefore unavoidable."
  The Labour Party made that statement having estimated that the balance of payments deficit for 1947 would be £350 million. In fact it turned out to be £675 million. [HON. MEMBERS: "After the war."] Yes; it was a time when the central Government had a much tighter control of economic circumstances and planning ought therefore to have been much more accurate. In any event, the hon. Gentleman will remember that one of the main themes I put forward in the 1961 Budget debates was the impossibility of predicting twelve months ahead with any certainty, because conditions do not remain as forecast. I think that is generally accepted. Therefore, I put forward the additional means of regulating the economy, which I think were accepted, certainly the first one. I am very glad that my right hon. Friend has continued the regulator, and I support the change which he has made.
  Chancellors of the Exchequer—and some more than others—are always portrayed as rather Scrooge-like creatures who like restricting for the sake of restricting, who like taxing for the sake of taxing, who want to depress living standards, and are set against expansion or reflation. In fact, there is nothing a Chancellor likes more than

  951
  expansion, because it makes for buoyancy of the revenue. Anyhow, it is very pleasant to give money away, particularly if it does not happen to be one's own.
  In both the Budget debate and at Sheffield—the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East misquoted what I said at Sheffield—I said that I would not hesitate to use the available regulators if the demand did not rise as forecast. In view of this allegation of a complete change and a complete inconsistency—
  Mr. James Callaghan: I would be glad to withdraw if necessary. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman repeat what he said?
  Mr. Lloyd: I said what I have just said; that if a change in domestic demand did not take place I would not hesitate to use the regulators.
  Mr. Callaghan: On 30th April, at the Sheffield Cutlers' Feast, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
  "The critics say 'Demand at home is sagging and there is a recession ahead. You ought in your Budget to have pumped a whole lot more purchasing power into the domestic economy. You have missed an opportunity.' The answer is simple. I did not do that because I expect to see production expand in 1962 without any additional stimulus through the Budget itself."
  That is exactly what I said last Thursday. That was the charge I made against him a year ago, and I repeat it now.
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member said on Thursday that I stated that there would be "no recession this year", I did not say that—
  Mr. Callaghan Mr. Callaghan rose—
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. W. R. Williams): If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not give way, the hon. Member must resume his place.
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member is being a very unfair controversialist because he cannot bear to have anything he said criticised. There is the report in HANSARD in which he put specific words into my mouth that I did not use—
  Mr. Callaghan: What were those words?
  Mr. Lloyd: What I said in the Budget
  952
  debate, when winding up, and also in my speech at the Cutlers' Feast; that if demand did not rise as forecast I would not hesitate to take measures to deal with the situation—
  Mr. Callaghan: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow me?—
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Lloyd: I will talk to the hon. Gentleman afterwards. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] The point is whether I stated that in no circumstances would I later take reflationary steps. I never said that. In the Budget debate speech just quoted I said that in certain circumstances I would take the measures.
  In fact, before the Budget I had reduced Bank Rate on two occasions. I made a third reduction at the end of April. At the end of May one-third of the special deposits were released, credit restrictions were then eased and the banks were asked to have special sympathy with the areas of surplus resources, hire-purchase deposits were halved on certain consumer durables, long-term interest rates were allowed to fall and, in June, decisions were taken about Government capital expenditure, particularly for housing, which took it well above the increase of 6 per cent. already accepted—taking it above 10 per cent.
  In July, other steps were under consideration of which my right hon. Friend knows and, since he took over, I have supported every reflationary action he has taken. This picture of me as someone obstinately opposed to reflation of any sort is wholly false. It is quite obvious that if demand does not rise as expected action has to be taken.
  As for the forecasts, for the first six months of that year the results were in accordance with them. Exports went up and, proportionately, we held our own with other exporting countries. Thereafter, conditions changed. The reasons are well known and are set out in the Economic Report. But I accept responsibility for the forecasts. I do not propose to shelter behind any official advice or any view put before me. If there was a fault, the fault was mine.
  On the other hand, I claim that, first, the measures taken by me defeated a determined onslaught on the £ from March to July, 1961, and my very last act as Chancellor was to authorise re-

  953
  payment of the whole debit outstanding to the I.M.F. Secondly, they changed a balance of payments from a deficit of £308 million in 1960 to a surplus of £67 million in 1961—an improvement of £375 million in two years.
  Thirdly, those measures reduced the rate of increase in weekly wage earnings from an increase of 6·6 per cent. in October, 1960, compared with the previous October, to 3·2 per cent. increase in October, 1962, as compared with October, 1961—a rate that I suggest was much more consistent with any figure of long-term growth of productivity that could be reasonably considered. Fourthly, those measures produced a situation in which many industrialists had to re-examine the efficiency of their operations and look at their costs, and I think that our goods are now much more competitive than they were 2½ years ago.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East made great play with this topic of expansion, alleging some inconsistency between the Chancellor and myself. He said that my right hon. Friend had told us that a healthy expansion of home demand and a strong £ go hand in hand, whereas I had based my Budgets on the need to safeguard the £ abroad which meant restricting demand at home, which was the whole case for the pay pause. That was not the whole case for the pay pause. The case for the pay pause was that it would keep down costs and prices. Nor did the hon. Gentleman quote my right hon. Friend precisely. My right hon. Friend said:
  "Sound expansion without inflation will not weaken sterling, but strengthen it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April, 1963; Vol. 675, c. 455.]
  I absolutely agree with that statement, and I think that my right hon. Friend would also agree with me that expansion achieved by inflation, or accompanied by inflation, is unhealthy, and will, in the long run, do no good.
  I know that it is fashionable to abuse stop-go, and if one could avoid fluctuations it would be perfect, but it is hopelessly unrealistic to think that any Government ever will be able to avoid intervention to slow down or speed up. It is hopelessly unrealistic to contend that what is right for one year is necessarily right for the next. But the Government of the day, in my view, because all the
  954
  pressures in a democracy are in favour of inflation, must err, if they do err, on the other side.
  I come now to the question of devaluation. That was one of the most important statements of the whole debate. I hope that I will not have a controversy with the hon. Gentleman over what was said then. He said that he was against devaluation, and referred to something said by his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. He said that unilateral devaluation would be an anti-social step of the first magnitude and that we must not yield to this temptation. I am delighted to hear that unequivocal statement. The hon. Gentleman is neither a floater nor a sinker. Mr. Kaldor has gone for a "burton". That was the Alan Day that was.
  Holding that view, and on that premise—which I share—how should we tackle the sort of situation we have had since the war—the problems of a country so dependent on exports, and with one of the reserve currencies? The hon. Member talked of improving liquidity and referred to French, Italian and German surpluses. We all agree that that kind of imbalance is undesirable, but in 1961, as a result considerably of a British initiative, we got an agreement whereby the resources of I.M.F. were strengthened by some 3,000 million dollars worth mainly of German, French and Italian money. I agree that more should be done, but the tendency is to forget what has been achieved—and achievement is often more difficult than talk.
  Then the hon. Gentleman talked of import controls as a solution to the problem and said that these should be looked at. I looked at them long and hard, but, in the first place, they are an administrative headache. That should not necessarily be a conclusive argument against them, but the fact remains that they are an administrative headache. They also take some time to take effect, unless there is to be a large-scale dislocation of trade, and they must be temporary if retaliation is to be avoided. They are a very "dicey" proposition.
  The hon. Gentleman also said that courage was needed—that Chancellors should be more courageous, ride the storm, and use the reserves hi difficult times because that was their purpose. I did that very thing in March, 1961, at a cost of £320 million—more was lost in

  955
  one day than ever before. In June and July one attempted to ride the storm, and we lost about £200 million more. The trouble is that one can mortgage one's house once and spend the money once; one can pledge one's securities with the bank and use that money once. There is nothing wrong in using reserves to finance the importing of raw materials, because those are just as valuable as the cash. But one cannot go on doing it unless in some way the money has been re-earned, and if the end of the road is not to be "an anti-social step of the first magnitude"—deflation—there are severe limits on the risk which it is reasonable to expect any Chancellor to take.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East then talked about a long-term plan. Again, in every long-term plan, there are all sorts of difficulties. My quotation earlier from the 1948 Economic Survey is very much to the point. But I set up, with the approval of my colleagues, the N.E.D.C. to examine the problem of growth. It is an experiment in planning by consent. It has certainly captured the interest of the nation, and I believe that it is gaining ground. The Report to which the hon. Member for Hamilton referred is fairly tough reading but, considering the time available, it is a very great achievement by the staff of the N.E.D.C. It is a brilliant performance that they should have managed to get the Report out in that time. I look forward to the next publication. I hope that it will be forthcoming very soon, and I hope that the Council will extend its inquiries and will grow in influence.
  My right hon. Friend referred to the question of an incomes policy and said:
  "… expansion and incomes policy are entirely interdependent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April, 1963; Vol. 675, c. 475.]
  He pointed out that with an expansion rate of 4 per cent., an increase of 3 per cent. to 3½ per cent. on average in money incomes was one that could be tolerated. I agree. The difficulty, however, arises over the word "average".
  I take the case of wages in the building trade, for example, and I do so because of their effect on the cost of houses, schools, hospitals and public construction of all sorts. It is an industry with a very strong bargaining posi-
  956
  tion at the moment. It is likely to be overloaded again quite soon. It is an industry in which employers can easily pass on increased costs. Earnings in the industry have gone up by about 25 per cent. in three years, and building costs have risen by about the same percentage. I will not comment today on the decision of the unions concerned not to take part in the N.I.C. inquiry, but it is in the national interest that the facts should be known and that people should realise that if a 3 per cent. to 3½ per cent. increase is the average, then if one section of the community has 8 per cent. someone else will get little or nothing. This is the basic fact about an incomes policy which must be realised.
  But more important than the short-term measures or the general ideas is to concentrate on ways of improving incentives and efficiency and reducing costs. I welcome the steps which my right hon. Friend has taken. Before the Budget he had already acted on Purchase Tax, and I strongly supported his action. It carried on what I started last year and took it an important step further. I am sure that my right hon. Friend was right to concentrate on Income Tax, and I welcome the steps he has taken.
  In the matter of tax reform, I was delighted that my right hon. Friend was able to deal with Schedule A all in one go. On the added value tax, I share the doubts of both my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East. I think that it would produce very formidable administrative problems, and I suspect that if it were carried out one would have little thanks from industry afterwards. I have taken that view after a certain amount of study, and I await with interest to hear what Mr. Gordon Richardson has to say on the subject.
  I support my right hon. Friend on the depreciation allowances. The experiment of free depreciation for the special areas is a very bold one, despite the obvious difficulties about boundaries and cost. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend has not pushed on with the idea of a single corporation tax to cover both Income Tax and Profits Tax for companies. There were difficulties, but I suspect that the opposition comes from those who think that in a democracy company profits are more vulnerable

  957
  than the earnings of the individual. I feel that that is the basic prejudice against this tax. But company profits, of course, are already subject to Profits Tax and there might be many occasions when the Chancellor might want to alter the standard rate, either for individuals or for companies, but not at the same time or to the same extent. I welcome very much the progress made in the reform of the presentation of the Exchequer accounts. This was something about which I always felt strongly and which I pressed as soon as I got to the Treasury.
  There is ground for anxiety about the increase in public expenditure. Estimates for current expenditure have gone up by nearly 10 per cent. This, I believe, is well ahead of the N.E.D.C. projection. If this sort of rate is regarded as the normal annual increase there are seeds of great trouble in it. Reflation by remission of taxation is one thing, because the tax can be put on again; it is a reversible process. But reflation by an increase in Government spending is not reversible and, if carried too far, can be dangerous.
  I repeat my view that a regular 10 per cent. increase each year will bring inflation, and I ask my right hon. Friend to watch this most carefully despite all the pressures from both sides of the Committee. A great deal of work was done in the two years during which I was at the Treasury on the five-year forward look which followed the recommendation of the Plowden Committee. I should very much like to hear how that work is going on. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will tell us.
  As for Government capital expenditure, I accept the proposition that when the private sector falls off the public sector should be stepped up, but I hope that the stepping up will take place on projects which will make the country more efficient. Mr. Harold Wincott talked the other day about "the infrastructure of industry" and gave it a very wide definition. I hope that when public expenditure has to be stepped up to fill the gap because the private sector is declining there will be concentration on the infrastructure of industry. I would give quite a lot to get our ports modernised even if that meant postponing some other work.
  958
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will think again about the idea of a Commonwealth Economic Development Council. It is relevant, not only generally but particularly, because there have been references in the Budget to special aid for certain Commonwealth members. I should like to see such a council constituted in the same kind of way as the N.E.D.C., with leading Ministers from the Commonwealth on it and with a staff like that of the N.E.D.C., looking not only at growth within the Commonwealth, but also at such matters as the co-ordination of development plans, security for investment, currency problems, migration, aid and technical assistance, and the marrying up of what are in many ways complementary economies. After the termination of the Common Market negotiations, it is particularly appropriate to think again and to take some initiative, because the Commonwealth Economic Consultative Committee does not fill the bill. I think that a Commonwealth Economic Council could capture the interest of the Commonwealth as the N.E.D.C. has captured interest in this country.
  I apologise for the length of my speech. I shall be already getting into bad odour, I am afraid, as a Privy Councillor and a back bencher with my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on an able Budget speech which was very easy to listen to and on well contrived tax reliefs which have a considerable follow-through in them. I think that their effects in 1964–65 will be even greater. I believe that this is a situation in which steady growth is possible, provided that our costs are watched, provided that the idea of an incomes policy is genuinely accepted, and provided that there is caution over Government expenditure. I endorse my right hon. Friend's view that expansion without, inflation is the only kind of expansion worth having, and I wish him all success in his efforts to achieve it.
  5.20 p.m.
  Mr. Neil McBride: I am certain that I shall have from hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the Committee the indulgence granted on occasions such as this. At the outset, I pay a tribute to my predecessor

  959
  as Member for Swansea, East, the late Mr. D. L. Mort. As a member of the British Iron and Steel and Kindred Trades Association, he had an expert knowledge of industrial matters. I, as a member of the parent engineering industry, will endeavour to attain his high level. In general matters, he gave of his talents and time in rendering good service to Swansea, East in particular and to the town of Swansea as a whole. I count it an honourable privilege to succeed Mr. Mort as Member for Swansea, East.
  I direct the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the section of his Budget speech which in the OFFICIAL REPORT is headed, "Regional Problems". In this, the right hon. Gentleman speaks of the problem of clearing derelict sites and rehabilitating them, for which purpose the ceiling of grant provision is raised from 50–75 per cent. to 85–95 per cent. for all tenders received and approved in the next nine months. In the latest test of public feeling in Swansea, this was a by-election issue, and I therefore pose the problem of Swansea to illustrate what I suggest.
  Within the last few weeks, the President of the Board of Trade was visited by a deputation from Swansea headed by his worship the mayor. This deputation wanted Swansea to be designated as an area requiring special attention because of unemployment. With particular reference to the problems described in the section of the Budget statement headed "Regional Problems", I ask that the term "development districts" be enlarged to read, "areas requiring special attention because of unemployment".
  The problem in Swansea is that insufficient industry is located within the town. The problem is intensified now, and has been for many years, by the continued flight of industry from Swansea. The recent closure of a constructional engineering firm emphasised this fact sharply. Among the many which have gone from Swansea are chemical works, steel tube works, copper works and smelting works. Moreover, in this great seaport where there were once seven dry docks there is now only one. Therefore, in the matter of derelict sites, Swansea deserves great attention.
  In the Morriston area there is a large site near which are to be found all the services which could readily be made
  960
  available if the site were cleared, rehabilitated and made attractive to industry. The Swansea Borough Corporation's Parliamentary committee, headed by a distinguished former Member of the House, Alderman Percy Morris, has been in close touch with the Board of Trade on this matter. The trouble in Morriston has been made acute by the severe contraction of the tinplate industry. Men have been idle in Morriston since 1958, and there is little hope of alternative employment. The rehabilitation of a site such as the one I have mentioned would render a great service and provide hope for the future.
  The Minister for Welsh Affairs will know that, when he visits Swansea and proceeds from Llansamlet to Landore, he passes through barren wastes where industry once fluorished. In these wastes there are derelict sites in which buildings stand like tombstones in an industrial graveyard.
  The cost of rehabilitating such areas in order to make them attractive to industry would be much too heavy a financial burden for the Borough of Swansea to bear. For this area, which was once the metallurgical centre of the world, I make the plea that the grant should be 100 per cent. in order that its derelict sites may be rehabilitated and made as attractive to industry as possible. If such a proposal were put into effect, a great deal of employment would be created.
  There are, in my view, three grounds for what I regard as this well justified proposal. First, industry attracted to Swansea would provide openings for adult labour displaced by the contraction of the older declining industries. Since 1951, Wales has lost 100,000 jobs. Many of the adult male workers displaced from employment in Swansea have little or no hope of securing work at all.
  Second—this is important for the future not only of Swansea and Wales but of the British nation as a whole—there is the need to provide opportunities for school leavers. In Swansea now, the position of boys wishing to secure apprenticeships is acutely difficult. In the last full year's report of the Youth Employment Committee, it was said that only 179 boys who had left school during the year had been placed in apprenticeships, representing only 17 per cent. of the total; and for girls the situation was much more difficult. I believe that, if

  961
  young people are to be given the opportunity to carve out the careers of their choice, there must be openings for them in places such as Swansea. If the derelict sites were levelled and made attractive, there would be brought to the area the light and diversified industries which would give them the opportunity to carve out their own careers instead of emigrating, as they will otherwise do, to London, Slough and Birmingham. The young people of my constituency want to set down their roots in their own area and bring up their families there, and it is right that they should.
  Third, the improvement for which I ask would be of great advantage to the rate yield of the borough and would make possible the maintenance and improvement of essential services in Swansea. Only sheer prudence in severely cutting the estimates has enabled Swansea Borough Corporation to peg the rate for this year at 9s. 4d. on the new valuations. The Corporation in its budget for 1963 had to cut the estimates by, in round figures, £180,000, of which £170,000 would have accrued from the rate yield. If one adds to this the cut in education estimates of £150,000 made in September last year, one sees that it is quite impossible for the Borough of Swansea to provide any capital for the clearance of derelict areas, even with a grant in aid to the extent of 95 per cent. This is why I say that the ceiling should be raised to 100 per cent.
  At present, the Llansamlet and Landore area enjoys everything which a good industrialist would like to find. There is a railway running through the centre of it. There is a fine port with berthage for 70 ships. I was interested in what was said by the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) when he spoke about the modernisation of ports. Swansea, already efficient, would certainly welcome any help in making itself a 100 per cent. modern and efficient port.
  In addition to the levelling and clearing, there is the problem of a road link so that goods may be sent to the points of distribution from the point of manufacture, and this would be encompassed by the 100 per cent. grant which I have proposed.
  I regard this as a special local authority project and I believe that it should receive special consideration. A
  962
  project such as this would help to cushion the borough in times of adversity and against unemployment. It would give hope, encouragement and a sense of aspiration to the school leavers of the future. It would help immeasurably in strengthening the economy of Swansea and by so doing would add materially to the prosperity of Wales. In time, the permeating effects would be of beneficial and lasting value to the nation.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Marshall: Right hon. and hon. Members always feel it an honour and a special privilege to follow an hon. Member who has just made his maiden speech, I am sure that I express the view of the whole House when I say that we have listened with great interest to what the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) has said. He has obeyed to the full the tradition of this House by not being controversial. He has made a special plea on behalf of Swansea, part of which he has the honour to represent. The town was being blitzed on the last occasion that I was in it, and one always remembers with pride the way in which one's fellow countrymen were withstanding the blast at that time. I sincerely hope that the hon. Member will have a very happy time in this House, and we look forward to the next occasion that he speaks in this Chamber. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
  I wish to make one or two specific points to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They are in fact exploratory points and, perhaps, will be more easily understood when the Finance Bill eventually reaches the House. However, in general, I feel that this is a Budget of expansion and of confidence. It has been said that a number of people outside this House, on hearing the contents of the Budget, would feel that it was flat. I believe that that would be the case only because they had not fully realised the significance of what was in the Budget. One cannot criticise people for the major reason for that, since many of the really important matters in the Budget are extremely technical and require a good deal of reading and studying.
  It has been said, rightly, that the

  963
  Chancellor has distributed a sum of £269 million per annum in tax reliefs, but, with the growth which that will stimulate, that figure can rise readily and easily to a figure of £600 million. Anyone who has burned the midnight oil in studying the Budget will realise that that is true.
  In that part of the debate to which I have listened very little has been made of the fact that 3¾ million of our people are now taken outside the area of taxation altogether. This is not only good for the people directly affected but will lessen the impact on the civil servants in the Inland Revenue who have always been very loyal and very over-worked. It may be that right hon. and hon. Members foresaw that Schedule A taxation on owner-occupiers would be abolished because of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer's predecessor said, but quite a lot of people felt that it would not be done all in one go. My right hon. Friend has done it in one go, and this is extremely satisfactory.
  Also, not much has been made of the lowering of the Stamp Duty on conveyances. But this will be extremely helpful to the man who has just got married and is buying a house for the first time. Most of us have been in this position, and this, too, will be an extremely useful measure.
  I come to the points which I specially wish to draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary. They are slightly technical and very teasing. My hon. Friend will be aware that over the last 18 years I have spoken in the House on metalliferous mining and mineral development generally. I have referred to the wealth which, I believe, lies hidden in our hills and have wondered what we could do to promote the extraction of this wealth for the benefit of the country. As far as I can remember, I have personally seen every Chancellor of the Exchequer since 1945 on this point and for the first time a Chancellor of the Exchequer has really tried to do something about it.
  I therefore first say, "Thank you" to my right hon. Friend, and I mean that very sincerely. I should like my right hon. Friend to know that not only myself but the mining people of Cornwall also wish to thank him. I have been in contact with some of them, also Robert
  964
  Boscawen came to see me last night to discuss this matter. People in the metalliferous mining and mineral development community in Cornwall feel that at last something is being done in this matter. What is much more important, they feel that this will help promote what they wish to bring about. I think that the original suggestion which some of my hon. Friends and myself, and, at one time, right hon. Friends, made would have given a greater incentive, but my right hon. Friend has not seen fit to implement it. He has put something else in its place, and we are extremely grateful for it.
  I wish to make these two points, and both of them cause me considerable worry. This must be related to the plans which have been put into operation in development areas; my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will realise that, in most cases, the areas in which the possibility of further or new development of metalliferous mining has been considered lie in development areas. But, if someone sets out to find mineral wealth, it is quite possible that he will find it in a place which is not in a development area. I should like to know what the position is exactly. For example, tin lies in only a very narrow part of the country.
  Secondly, my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will realise that the development of any mine is a long process. Whatever happens, it must be a long process. This is the difficulty. I should like to know the position if the area in which the mine is being developed ceases to be a development area. Will the assistance amounting overall to 130 per cent. planned for the area still be afforded even if that area after a year of two ceases to be a development area because a certain project has been started in it?
  My next point is this. In studying the Budget proposals, I am not sure whether the mineral depletion allowances will go to the promoters, to those who try to develop a metalliferous mine, or whether they will go to the owners of the royalties. I should like to get this clear, because it is extremely important. In a great many cases, metalliferous mining is not like other forms of mining. Sometimes, it is impossible actually to buy. Consequently, payment is based, as it has been for generations, on a royalty basis. Therefore, one needs to be sure that it is the promoter who will

  965
  derive the benefit, because the whole idea of the provision which is contained in the Budget is, one assumes, to get these things going.
  I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary another question concerning ships. I quote as an example a development area in which there are repair yards, like Falmouth or Belfast, or where there are shipbuilding yards or both. A capital conversion of a ship might be contemplated. A tanker, for example, might be converted into a refrigerated vessel. This would be a capital change. As such, would it qualify for the benefits of the Budget? If this is so, as I hope will be the case, it could indeed help all our ship repair and shipbuilding yards which lie within development areas, and there would be a double instead of a single benefit. In studying the Budget, the position is not at all clear. I hope that whoever winds up the debate tonight will have sufficient time to give an explanation.
  There is another point of which, I am sure, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary are well aware, but I cannot understand why nothing has been done about it. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor, with his great experience and knowledge, knows perfectly well that one of the things we want to do is to expand wherever possible within the Commonwealth. No hon. Member would deny that that objective is worthy of all of us. There is, however, a strange position in taxation. Every developing and developed Commonwealth country has a certain degree of growing national desires and, therefore, it is at times advantageous to have a company incorporated within that dominion or country of the Commonwealth.
  If a United Kingdom company, registered in this country, operates in the Commonwealth, it derives certain benefits in taxation. The strange thing is, however, that if that same company desires to do what the Dominion in which it operates wants it to do and lo incorporate a company in the Dominion, which is wholly owned by the company in the United Kingdom, it is denied all those benefits. I cannot understand why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will not do anything about this. I sincerely
  966
  trust that something will be done in the Finance Bill.
  An argument which the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), whom I sec in his place, would fully understand is that that might lead to a certain degree of tax avoidance. It may be true that the Treasury cannot say what the extent of such avoidance would be. I would be content if the Treasury would tell either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Economic Secretary. I do not believe that the question has been put by either of them to their own Treasury officials. If the Treasury could persuade them that the extent of the tax avoidance would be considerable, that would be another matter, but I am extremely doubtful whether the question has been asked.
  I come now to two controversial points. One of them is how to inspire exports. I fear that I shall view this matter somewhat differently from some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is so extremely difficult a problem that one never dreams that anybody will find the right answer. It is very difficult to define what is an export, whether it is a nut or a screw or the screw and the nut going into something else. The whole thing is very difficult to define within G.A.T.T. and the rest. Therefore, I have a great deal of sympathy for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary and everybody else in the Treasury on this subject.
  A great deal has been said about the fuel tax. I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the view which, I think, has been taken by the Opposition Front Bench. Our major source of fuel—coal—has been undergoing a difficult time. We cannot suddenly decide to desert an existing source. I am not a Liberal—I am a Conservative; and I see nothing wrong in a certain amount of protection from time to time; but I consider that this question must be examined again within the near future, because it is obvious to everyone that this form of taxation simply raises costs and puts our manufacturers in a less competitive position.
  If, therefore, at a later date—not as far away as the next Budget—it is seen to be possible, without damaging our major industry of coal, to relieve the tax on fuel, this would be a good thing. I share the view of the Chancellor that

  967
  although the present may not be the moment to do it, it might be possible in the near future to remove this tax on fuel.
  5.48 p.m.
  Mr. John Diamond: I intend later in my remarks to return to what the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Marshall) has said about exports. I should like at the outset, however, to associate myself most heartily with the charming and well-deserved compliment which he paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride). His was a remarkable maiden speech.
  As it was a maiden speech, however, my hon. Friend naturally forbore from taking any part in a debate with the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), who had immediately preceded him from the benches opposite. I hope, therefore, that it will not be deemed in any way uncharitable of me if, in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's temporary absence, I reply to some of his remarks. I recognise that it is not possible always for somebody to be in the Chamber throughout a debate. Nevertheless, it is equally right that things which are said in the House should be answered.
  I want to make it clear to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, in my view, he differs totally from the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. All his attempts to pretend that he is the same as the present Chancellor and that his own policies naturally preceded those of his right hon. Friend, whose proposals should for this reason be supported, fall entirely flat on my ears.
  To me, the present Chancellor appears to be acting like an expansionist. The previous Chancellor was a very clear restrictionist in his emphasis on the £—protection of sterling first and at all costs, and only when one had protected sterling could one possibly think of expansion. What the present Chancellor is trying to do—he has said so—is to achieve expansion without inflation. What the previous Chancellor achieved was inflation without expansion. The previous Chancellor paid lip-service to efficiency, but all his actions prevented all our manufacturers from producing efficiently because all their plants had
  968
  to be at 60 or 70 per cent. of productive capacity, and everyone knows that the way to get costs down is to have one's plant running as far as possible day and night at full stretch.
  The present Chancellor—I say this readily—struck me as being fair with his Income Tax reliefs. He has spread the reliefs at the lower end of Income Tax liability and given freedom from tax to nearly 4 million people. The previous Chancellor was grossly unfair in limiting his income reliefs almost exclusively to the richest section of the community, whereas the present Chancellor has directed his attention to the poorest section. I remember the previous Chancellor, and shall always remember him, as a person who was grossly unfair in regard to the Surtax reliefs which he gave and as the person who was most responsible for causing hardship and misery unnecessarily to 250,000 unemployed during this year. That is all I have to say about the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: With regard to the hon. Gentleman's first point, would he not admit that the economic situation is totally different from what it was when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral was Chancellor of the Exchequer? In those days we had a £300 million deficit; now we have a £67 million credit.
  Mr. Diamond: The position is different only to this extent, that the previous Chancellor misunderstood, and showed in his speech today that he still does not appreciate, the task that he then had and of which he has now been relieved. He does not appreciate the need of it. He does not realise the need to keep the economy fully going. It was his lack of understanding, misinterpretation of the future and false estimate which led directly to our unemployment in men and in machines.
  I now turn directly to the Budget. There are two things in it that I welcome very much for rather obvious and personal reasons. I welcome the statements which have been made both by the Chancellor and by the Minister of Labour today with regard to redundancy arrangements and severance pay. I welcome very strongly that both sides of

  969
  the House now accept the principle that there should be severance pay in redundancy of an appropriate kind in appropriate circumstances. As to the detailed terms, obviously no hon. Member can introduce in a Private Member's Bill the ideal arrangement. Everyone must be grateful that the Government are now tackling the matter with all the resources available to a Government. I am sure that we shall in the end—I hope that the time is not too far distant—have a severance pay scheme which will be far better than any hon. Member, even myself, could possibly have envisaged.
  But I hope that the Government will not hesitate to legislate. Experience has shown that this is necessary. The pace is too slow; it is impossible to achieve what is desirable without legislation, and legislation would be generally acceptable. But legislation must provide for minimum terms. Provided that the Government bear those two things in mind, I am sure that we shall make great progress in the autumn when the Bill, as I hope it will be, is introduced by the Government.
  I also strongly welcome the idea now generally called "free depreciation". My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) said that he was not an accountant and, therefore, did not find it easy to estimate whether this would be likely to have a considerable appeal. I can say immediately that I regard it as something which should be of considerable and dynamic appeal to most businessmen—certainly to any businessman who really understands his job. It is an excellent idea. The Chancellor went a little far in calling it new and revolutionary, since I myself have put it forward in Labour Party circles for five years and in the House of Commons for three years and devoted half my speech on the Budget last year to this topic. But we will not argue about it. So long as back benchers have the consolation of knowing that, by and large, any good idea of theirs will be adopted after a two-year lag, it makes one's task worth while.
  I repeat that I think this is a fair Budget so far as its tax provisions are concerned, but it is a wholly inadequate one in terms of achieving the efficiency and expansion that we need. It is not right to say—the Chancellor kept on saying it—that what we now need to
  970
  plan for is a 4 per cent. increase in total demand. That is what we should have been planning for two or three years ago. We have had two years of stagnation. For the Chancellor to come forward in an expansionist mood and say at the end of the two years, "Let us now start where we should have started two years ago", is wholly inadequate. If that is the best that he can do in the way of a target, we shall not achieve anything like so much as we should do. If the target had been 4 per cent. for each of the last two years and 4 per cent., for this year, making a total of 12 per cent., I could have understood it. It is because of these figures that I think we should go for a percentage much higher than that, something, if possible, in terms of manufacturing improvement, in the nature of 10 per cent—at all events, much nearer that than 4 per cent.
  I say this particularly because we have to cure unemployment. That is one of the things the Budget is supposed to be about. But everyone knows that the unemployment capacity is at least 15 per cent. greater. That means that there could be an additional demand on the economy of about 15 per cent. before the total number of men out of work would be not only re-employed but fully employed. Therefore, if we are to have an increase of only 4 per cent., it would be perfectly possible to have it without one man being re-employed if we went all out for efficiency. It is not likely to happen that way, but it could.
  Sir Alexander Spearman: I do not necessarily accept the hon. Gentleman's figures, but if they were right, would he not agree that, so far from there having been two years of stagnation, if productive capacity has grown by 15 per cent. it must have been a very dynamic two years?
  Mr. Diamond: That is untypical of the hon. Gentleman. It is indicative of a restrictionist approach to suggest that the way to get the economy put in order is to restrict the demands on the economy and restrict productive work. The hon. Gentleman does not believe that. I am sure that he believes that the way to do it is to get everybody fully employed. That is what we could now do if we set our sights at much higher than the 4 per cent. envisaged.

  971
  I well realise that if one talks about a target of 10 per cent. or double the 4 per cent. it requires certain consequential arguments, and I now propose to address myself to them. First of all, it requires a very substantial increase in exports. My first comment on that is that we are now acknowledged to be competitive in export prices. Indeed, the time has never been when we were not competitive in price. We were always threatened that if the wage earners got the increases they claimed we should cease to be competitive in price. But we have never reached the stage of losing exports in any substantial way through being uncompetitive in price.
  Everyone in industry knows that one of the greatest goads to competitiveness and efficiency is a substantial wage demand. I am not encouraging substantial wage demands, but am just saying that that is what puts the managing director on his mettle. That makes him think, as it makes Americans think, in terms of more horsepower and of less manpower. That is the way one begins to think of new ideas, for the human capacity to think of new ideas is endless. Just because one had a good new idea a year ago does not mean that one cannot think of one now.
  Mr. John Biffen: If it is so vital to make comparisons with the attitude in the United States, would the hon. Gentleman also accept comparison with the attitude of the United States as to what is an acceptable level of unemployment?
  Mr. Diamond: The two situations are utterly different. Geography in the United States is totally different from ours. The distances between towns are vast. In any case, it is not the desire of the United States to maintain the level of employment which it has experienced now for some time.
  What we need is exports. We are already competitive. That is the first element among the things we need for successful exporting. The trouble is that we are not export-minded as a nation. I agree with the hon. Member for Bodmin, who said that selective tax incentives were not the way to increasing exports. I do not deny that one can produce a system of tax incen-
  972
  tives, but I believe that the arguments I have heard from the Government as to why one cannot do it are shallow. One can do it if one wants to. But I do not want to.
  I do not want to select a small part of those who contribute to the whole of the total production and efficiency of our country and say to them, "You will get a soft ride if you export more." We do not want any more inducements and soft rides. We already have enough of that in agriculture and in the "You have never had it so good" atmosphere.
  We want hard rides. We want every person in this country to realise that there is no action which he takes which does not have an effect on our export capacity. Every manager must realise that, if he is more efficient in anything he sells on the home market, this has its effects on his capacity to export at cheap prices. Every wage earner must realise that every time he makes application for an increase in wages he must take into account our competitive position in exports. Every person in this country should be more export-minded. But we shall not achieve that if the Government take aside a small number of people and tell them, "You are the people on whom our exports rest. You can do the exporting while the rest of us sit back and watch."
  Sir G. Nabarro: I do not think that that is a fair statement of the argument. Let us take the E.E.C. as an example. Five out of the six countries arrange their taxation in such a way as to abate that part of the taxation which relates to goods exported from those countries. That is not a fiscal incentive. It is merely the removal of taxation from export goods. That is all that is wanted here in order that we shall remain strictly competitive with Western European countries.
  Mr. Diamond: This is a very long argument and it is one that I would not accept. If the hon. Gentleman is talking about T.V.A. then I do not accept that argument. I accept what the Chancellor has said about it.
  Sir G. Naharro: I am not necessarily talking about T.V.A. alone. The German turnover tax is another example They all add up to the same thing, however.
  Mr. Diamond: I think that Purchase

  973
  Tax is simpler, more reliable, cheaper to collect and just as effective. I am not yet persuaded that the way to export more is to put up all prices so that the exporter has large reductions in his export prices. But that is the effect of T.V.A. and of the German method, and I do not approve of it. I believe that after the inquiry—with which I am delighted—we shall come to the conclusion that there is a great deal to be said for Purchase Tax and for all of us accepting it as part of our responsibilities somehow or other to achieve greater exports.
  Other people are export-minded. For instance, the Germans and the Italians think of exports as I want us to think of them. They concentrate on the possibility of exporting first and of serving the home market afterwards. Until we accept that kind of priority we shall not achieve the necessary increase in exports. I hope that whichever member of the Government is to have the pleasure of entertaining the 100 expanding businessmen to lunch will impress on them the need for exports.
  I wish also that our exporters would concern themselves much more with advertising overseas in foreign languages. We are far too conservative—with a small "c", for no one would attempt to use the word with a capital "C" these days—and are too terrified of making spelling mistakes in foreign languages. Yet even this can he effective in its own way. One case which came to my notice was that of an English-language advertisement by the manager of a French hotel outside Paris. It met with considerable success by stating that every front first-floor bedroom not only looked over the river but had a French widow in it. I recommend our own would-be exporters to try their hand at advertising in foreign languages.
  We are trying to create circumstances in which we can achieve greater exports. I have indicated that we are competitive and that, if we increase our export-mindedness, our exports could go up. But there remain two snags. One cannot export without an importer and one cannot export if one is to run into balance of payments difficulties.
  How does one create more importers? The initiative taken by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in
  974
  Washington, the Kennedy Round and the G.A.T.T. negotiations are all methods of increasing opportunities for importers and of increasing international trade. I hope that we shall not overlook the proximity of the fastest increasing market—the E.E.C.—for it presents us with the most ready means of increasing our exports.
  The fact that our negotiations for entry have come to what I hope is only a temporary halt—it was certainly untimely—does not mean that the problems thrown up by the negotiations have been solved. The fact that we are not talking about these questions does not mean that they have been answered. They are still there. Yet not one word about it was contained in the Budget statement, which was the first to follow the negotiations. There was no indication of what we should do or of what alternative there is. This passionate lover, the Conservative Party, which embraced the lady of the Six so fervently and publicly in Brussels—
  Mr. Cyril Bence: He was a gigolo.
  Mr. Diamond: —seems to have thrown over the lady.
  Mr. D. J. Williams: He found out about her.
  Mr. Diamond: I am as much in love with her as ever I was. Love was officially declared by the party opposite at their conference last year but not one word about it was contained in the Budget statement. Are we to resume the full negotiations? Are we to start them again in more limited aspects at any time? What alternative have the Government in mind?
  Has any alternative been thought about? According to the Conservative Party, it was fundamental to our economic recovery that we should join the E.E.C. The Chancellor, in his Budget statement, was talking about our recovery but said not one word about what we were to do now following the breakdown in the Brussels talks.
  I recognise that there are difficulties. No politician likes to jump in just after he has had a rather unpleasant cold shower. He likes to wait for the circumstances to improve a little. No doubt the Conservative Party, having

  975
  been pulled backwards through a large thicket, feels that it would like time to settle down a little before having another go. But the country cannot wait while the Conservative Party makes up its mind whether it is in its political interests to have another go or not.
  Sir G. Nabarro: What would the Labour Party do?
  Mr. Diamond: I am making my speech.
  Mr. Bence: We are the Opposition. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro) is on the Government side.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Split?
  Mr. Diamond: I hope that I do not interrupt the hon. Member for Kidderminster too much.
  The serious part is that at the moment there is a vacuum in Europe, which every politician knows is the most serious situation to exist. How is to be filled? My anxiety is that it shall not be filled in the wrong way. Unless we take urgent steps to do something, it may be filled in the wrong way. We should take steps to re-establish connection, not over the whole field, because that has been demonstrated too recently to be impossible, but in a limited field where success might lie. The reason why I am anxious about this is because the real damage that was done when the negotiations were terminated was not in what was said, because there was force in the argument, but because the force of the personality matters. It was a case of using force to end an argument.
  If what M. Monnet had called the European method had been considered and if arguments had been put before the Council of Ministers which they had examined as we examine arguments in Standing Committees and come to a conclusion one way or another on those arguments, it would have been different. One person has considerable power—we might think too much power, for apparently it is the case that if there one says "Resign" one is liable to be fined £40, according to a B.B.C. public statement. How many times have I said to hon. Members opposite "Resign", not with success I am afraid? A situation is developing which one wants to
  976
  avoid. One does not avoid it by refusing to go to tea parties but by getting together and restoring as far as possible unity of thought and co-operation between the Six and ourselves.
  Then joint co-operation and discussion over the matter can be re-established. Only when we are ready to accept that method, and when the Six are ready to accept it, will it be possible to say that the European Community is moving ahead. We should want to do everything possible to make that come about and to play our part in it. I am spending so much time on this topic because I think it is directly related to present problems concerned with the Budget. I have been talking about exports and the need for importers. They are there in Europe. I now want to talk about the need for reserves and, I repeat, they are there in Europe.
  There are the reserves of France, Germany and Italy. When I last looked at the figures I found that the reserves of each of those countries were greater than our reserves. Our reserves should be used for a variety of purposes. I entirely agree with the Chancellor that they should be used to finance a temporary increase in imports which would follow an expansion of exports. The only safe long-term method of increasing reserves is by exporting more. If during the process of solving the long-term problem of reserves we are met with the short-term problem of increasing imports, nothing is more sensible than that we should use reserves for that purpose.
  That is one thing we can certainly do, but there is another problem connected with our reserves. That is support for international trading, the currency which is used—sterling with dollars—to finance international trading. This is a convenience to international traders as well. It is a convenience to all the members of the Six. Here is a matter of common interest between ourselves and the Six, not a matter of opposed interests. Here is a method—if we are prepared to forget, as I hope we are, the outworn ideas of prestige and being the sole people concerned with maintaining a currency for world trade—by which we can co-operate with them with our knowledge, our "know-how" and our machinery in the City for giving effect to all this.

  977
  If we are prepared to co-operate with the Six in this way, and they in turn are prepared to co-operate with us by combining their very substantial reserves with ours, we could find a common interest which would not only assist us in the major problem of exports, but would re-establish a method of getting together with OUT immediate and natural neighbours to the benefit of all. I very much hope that the Government will take a major initiative in seeing whether we can get together in this limited field.
  6.17 p.m.
  Sir Robert Cary: I hope that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) and also my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Marshall) will allow me to join with them in congratulations to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) on his clear, cogent and thoughtful maiden speech. I do so not only because I was impressed by the speech, but because the late Mr. David Mort, his predecessor, was for some years the hon. Member for the Eccles Division of Lancashire. Just as the hon. Member for Swansea, East has succeeded Mr. Mort, I later represented the Eccles Division of Lancashire for ten years after Mr. Mort.
  I also take up the matter raised by the hon. Member for Gloucester in the point he made against my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), whose excellent speech this afternoon will certainly be long remembered by many hon. Members on this side of the Committee. At the beginning of that speech my right hon. and learned Friend said that he found himself short of the comfort of speaking at the Dispatch Box, but with my hon. Friend for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro) in his place in front of him. Nevertheless, in making that speech, he showed the same sort of courage which he showed two years ago when he took those vital steps to defend the £. He took those steps then which led ultimately to the change in his own career, but by that means we now enjoy doing what we are able to do in this Committee through the agency of the present Budget.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour would be the first to agree that the proposals enshrined in this Budget are much the best that could follow in sequel to the debate on unemployment on 4th
  978
  February, when we pleaded for a major initiative by the Government to help us with that problem. I say to the Minister of Labour, as to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that this happens in a period when the Prime Minister heads the Government, one who, as a back bencher, before the war, I heard plead from the opposite benches for the flexibility that this initiative represents.
  My right hon. Friend pleaded again and again for help in overcoming the terrible unemployment of those years, and I think that the way in which such ready aid is now provided to help overcoming unemployment, and so soon after that debate on 4th February, is a fulfilment of the Prime Minister's own career as a parliamentarian.
  Time is running on and there are many things I should like to say to the Committee, so perhaps, like the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gloucester, I shall telescope some of my points. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour will recall that in the debate on unemployment I pleaded for the appointment of regional industrial commissioners to administer the sort of proposals which are now before the Committee. I think that we shall have great difficulty in the tactical exercise, and through the invitation given to industry, to set up business in the more distressed areas. On the fringes of those areas there are areas of semi-prosperity in which the unemployment level may not be more than 5 per cent. or 6 per cent.
  The temptation for industrialists to be drawn away under these provisions and to take with them some of their labour, from the semi-prosperous areas to the more distressed areas, is a real one. The present system of issuing industrial development certificates is much too rigid. I would much prefer to see the whole of this business placed on a regional basis to be operated by regional industrial commissioners who really do know the battlefield in which they have to work.
  The present system, good though it has been in some respects, administered directly by the Board of Trade, is now insufficient to exploit and make the most of the quite generous proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if these are

  979
  to be a good sequel to our debate on unemployment.
  What, perhaps, is the first sequel which there might be for some of the areas most badly hit? Speaking for Merseyside and the north-western area, I am a little distressed myself by the slowness there has been with the development of that vast extension of Ford's there. Having listened to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), I hope, with him, that now that that new paper mill has been announced the course may be swifter for the benefits which the expenditure of that £10 million could bring to that area of Scotland.
  I would ask my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to say, when he winds up the debate, just a little about the present methods of deploying the industrial development certificates and whether there has been any examination in the Board of Trade as to how locally the industrial commissioners could be employed who could give a better expertise in the fulfilment of the Chancellor's proposals. We had an excellent system during the war of civic control through people known as regional commissioners. There were 12 of them. For the unpredictable circumstances of the future I should like to see our country split into 12 regions and the appointment of an industrial commissioner for each one. In some areas there may not be much work for them in other areas they could be extremely busy, but their effectiveness and importance one cannot overestimate. I think that they have a vital part to play.
  There are one or two other points, also, I would put to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary. Following the debate of 30th January of last year, I pleaded with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the £1 licence duty which goes to Customs and Excise be diverted to the B.B.C. I am very grateful that that has happened, but I also asked for an additional £1, making it £5 on the assumption that the B.B.C. would be allocated in the beginning a second television channel and that the rate of expenditure which would fall on the B.B.C. would compel it to borrow far too much money. I am anxious that the B.B.C. should not be driven to borrowing too much money. There are limits to its borrowing powers. I notice that the £1 benefit in Customs and Excise is to date
  980
  from 1st October. I wonder whether it ought not really to date from the beginning of the financial year, 1st April.
  That is now a week ago. It would be worth £5¼ million to the B.B.C. if the £1 benefit were transferred to 1st April from 1st October. I think that my right hon. Friend, in his Budget speech, mentioned £13 million as the cost in a full year and in the first year £7¾ million. The balance is £5¼ million. I would ask him seriously to consider whether that transfer could come on 1st April this year.
  I also invite my right hon. Friend to consider helping people of extremely moderate means for whom an outlay of £4 all at once is a burden. I wonder whether there could be issued through the Post Office half-crown stamp cards which people of extremely modest means could buy from time to time as contributions towards the payment of the £4 licence a year. This would be a form of saving by instalments for people far whom it is quite a penalty to have to produce £4 all at once for a licence.
  I have one more thing to say which concerns that part of the Chancellor's speech which touched on fuel oil. This was also referred to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hamilton. There is one important section of the oil world; it belongs to the world of derv, that is, oil which is used for diesel-engined road vehicles. There are 75,000 buses and coaches in our country for the dery for which there is charged no less than 2s. 9d, a gallon, a rate of taxation of 275 per cent. It makes the rate of taxation on a mink coat or diamonds relatively modest. This is passed not only on to the companies in cutting back their services, but on to the passengers in the fares that they have to pay. We could as well be crude about it and print on a bus ticket that or ld. of the ticket is required to pay fuel tax—tax at 2s. 9d. a gallon.
  My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary knows that I am responsible for operating a great public service unit in the north of England, and many hon. Members opposite know that I am familiar with this problem. I have personally waited upon five successive Chancellors of the Exchequer for some modification of this tax, but without

  981
  success. Even the consideration which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to give to oil duties is not to concern derv.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) that more should be done to protect the coal industry. For years I represented a coal constituency. That sounds wrong, but it sometimes happens that public life is full of contradictions and, of course, it was in an age, when I did not look as I look now. I looked more like a Bevin boy when I was elected. Perhaps the electors thought that they were electing me to go to the pit; I do not know.
  I feel strongly about this issue, but I do not want to unpack all my Parliamentary and industrial luggage about fuel taxation on dery except to say that when we return after the Recess we are to discuss the Seedling plan for the railways and that it is tragic that we should have such a recommendation from such an able industrialist and yet follow a policy in fuel taxation which has cut so many of our bus services to ribbons and which has left great counties like Westmorland and Durham and Cumberland and Lincolnshire deserts because of the absence of the services which once existed there. Many of them will now have to be restored.
  Mr. Ridley: Will not the closure of the branch railway lines increase the traffic available to buses and thus achieve the object for which my hon. Friend is arguing?
  Sir R. Cary: I could not agree more. In the end, it must lead to an immense restoration of the bus services in rural areas. The tragedy is that the services should have had to be cut back by present-day operators so often. I wish that we had the great pattern which we had ten or fifteen years ago running through our rural areas. Many of the routes which once existed have now been cancelled.
  The theme of expansion without inflation which has been put forward by the Chancellor is rather nice. It is said that inflation has been with us and going on progressively since the Middle Ages. Yet I recall that it really got under way when we formed the Coalition Government in 1940. The House of Commons then had a Money Committee
  982
  and we asked the famous Cambridge economist, Maynard Keynes, to come and talk to us.
  We then had no doubt that we would win the war. We had heard the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) on his return from Paris, when General Weygand had spoken to him in such immoderate language. We were concerned not with winning the war, but how to pay for it. We asked Maynard Keynes to come and address us and I remember that he told us two things. The first was that we would have controlled inflation. We were rather puzzled by that, because it seemed like asking someone to control a runaway horse. But he then said something which quite shocked us. He said, "Do not be frightened of inflation. It is the finest debt payer in the world".
  Progressively, debts have been discharged too often by the medium of inflation. Indebtedness can go too deep and too far. For that reason I reinforce the Chancellor's plea that his proposals may receive the fulfilment they deserve in the design they intend and that we shall have expansion without inflation.
  6.35 p.m.
  Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) always makes an agreeable speech, but as he spoke I could not help wondering how he voted last year and in previous years on Amendments to the Finance Bill proposed from this side of the Committee to reduce the tax on derv, or how he voted on Amendments which we proposed to the Local Employment Bill.
  However, we are thankful that he is now converted to the point of view expressed from this side of the Committee many years ago. Listening to the debate on the Budget proposals over the last few days, it has struck me as amazing what the imminence of a General Election can do, plus one or two by-election results and public opinion polls. We have had almost a mass conversion by the Tory Party to views which have been held on this side of the Committee for many years.
  In particular, I remember a debate last year on the development districts and the Local Employment Act when we were challenging Government policy on unemployment and when the present President

  983
  of the Board of Trade, he was also the President of the Board of Trade at that time—he was one who saved his skin last July—said:
  "I challenge the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East to suggest how we can do better than we are doing at present … apart from minor details and changes in emphasis he cannot suggest how we can do better than we are doing. The Government are very proud of their achievement in this respect"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April, 1962; Vol. 657, c. 1188.]
  That complacency and indifference, which have continued ever since, have brought us to the impasse at which we now find ourselves.
  The evidence that the position is getting worse rather than better is overwhelming for anyone who cares to look at it. When the Local Employment Act was first initiated, in April, 1960, the number of wholly unemployed in the development districts as a whole was 121,135, a rate of 4·5 per cent. In April, 1962, two years later, the number of wholly unemployed in the development districts as a whole was 118,197, a rate of 4·6 per cent. In other words, two years' operation of the Act—and we all remember the propaganda at the last General Election about what this Act was to do—had made a difference of 0·1 per cent., hardly any impact at all. In the development districts there was a reduction in the total number of unemployed of less than 3,000.
  In January of this year, the number of unemployed in the development districts was 178,101, a rate of 7·5 per cent. The Minister of Labour told us today that the latest figure was 7·7 per cent. Three years of the Act has increased the unemployment rate in the development districts from 4·5 per cent. to 7·7 per cent. In Scotland, in April, 1960, the total wholly unemployed in the development districts was 65,348. In January, 1963, it was 89,500. There was a drop in the percentage rate from 5·5 per cent. in April, 1960, to 5·4 per cent. in April, 1962—a drop of 0·1 per cent. in the first two years of the operation of the Act—but it went up to 8·9 per cent. in January, 1963, and it is not very much different now. In the three years of the operation of this Act in Scotland unemployment in the development districts increased from 5·5 per cent. to 8·9 per cent., and the gap between unemployment in the
  984
  development districts in Britain as a whole and those in the rest of the country widened considerably during that period.
  The relative problem is getting worse instead of better, and, clearly, anyone who looks at the facts, and who has been looking at them as the situation has developed, must come to the conclusion that the Act was inadequate. The most that the Government could claim—and, indeed, this has been claimed on some occasions by some of the fairer-minded hon. Gentlemen opposite—was that things might have been worse had it not been for the Act. This is the most that could be said for it, but this is a very different claim from that which was made for the Act when it was initiated three years ago. We all remember the last General Election. At that time unemployment was one of the major domestic problems, and the claim made by the Tory Party for this Act were wildly extravagant and grossly dishonest. Scotland was not deceived then, and she is not now.
  Major developments in Scotland have taken place outside the ambit of the Local Employment Act. The provision of the strip mill had nothing to do with that Act, nor did the action taken by the motor industry. Indeed, the Board of Trade was determined to get the motorcar industry there whether the Local Employment Act got on to the Statute Book or not.
  Mr. R. Gresham Cooke Mr. R. Gresham Cooke(Twickenham):
  rose—
  Mr. Hamilton: There have been far too many interjections. Many hon. Members want to take part in the debate. I intend to say my piece on this.
  I think that the investment by Rootes and B.M.C. could have been taken to Scotland under previous legislation. Moreover, the total number of jobs provided is not known. The Minister does not know it. His Department does not know it. Nobody knows how many jobs have actually been provided. All that the President of the Board of Trade could say last week was that the number of jobs to be provided was estimated at 90,000, but he does not know how many of those will accrue. He does not know how many have accrued. He quoted a figure of 3,000 for B.M.C., and possibly

  985
  another 1,000 for Rootes, but we are not sure how many have been provided, and the Board of Trade makes no systematic attempt to get the figures by asking these firms what we are getting for the expenditure of this public money.
  The Government had some good fortune, because it so happened that at the time the Act was going on to the Statute Book the motor-car industry was in the position of wanting to make big capital investments. This cycle does not come round at more than ten-yearly intervals, and it just happened that when the Act was being considered the industry was in the position of wanting to expand. Had it not been for that, the results of this Act, miserable as they are, would have been even more miserable. Furthermore, we know that the amount of money being spent under the Act is decreasing, and is likely to continue to do so over the next few years.
  Consider Bathgate, where the B.M.C. factory is situated. The percentage rate of unemployment there, at Broxburn and the Calders in April, 1960, was 5 per cent., with 1,368 unemployed. In April, 1962, it was 4·1 per cent., or 1,099 unemployed, a slight reduction, but in January, 1963, it was 9·8 per cent., or 2,147. This is where the big motor-car industry development is taking place, and there has been very little change since then.
  Great play has been made of the fact that £81 million has been provided under the Act, but, as the President of the Board of Trade pointed out, £52 million of this is a loan, and £29 million was spent on providing Board of Trade factories. In other words, most of the money will come back to the Treasury. It is not a grant. The net outlay will probably be about £10 million over three years and I do not think that anybody has the right to be satisfied with what has been achieved under this Act. Indeed, the Government themselves are admitting that. We would not have had these measures if the Act had been adequate. If the Act had been an enormous success, the unemployment problem would have been solved and none of these measures would have been produced. We are to have new legislation, but is this to be supplementary to the Local Employment Act, or a massive amendment of it?
  986
  I pay my tribute to the tax concessions provided by the Chancellor. The free depreciation and the cash grant of 25 per cent. on the cost of new building, and 10 per cent. on the cost of machinery is a very open-ended commitment by the Board of Trade, and the President of the Board of Trade knows very well what the Estimates Committee said about open-ended commitments. In addition, firms will get all the normal investment and initial allowances. Enormous amounts of public money are being used to bribe private industry to do a job which is socially necessary. This is a measure of the failure of the capitalist system to solve these problems.
  I do not often read the Investors' Chronicle. As far as I know, it is not a Labour journal. It had an article headed, "Chips for Everybody", an extremely good title. If a firm establishes itself in a non-development district and sets up a branch in a development district, according to this journal—and I should like some enlightenment on this—the firm can offset all these potential claims to which I have referred against the tax liability arising from profits earned in other parts of the country. That means that any firm which transfers a branch to a development district can get a useful subsidy against its whole tax liability.
  If there were a recession, if, by any chance, the Tory Party got in at the next General Election as a result of these bribes and we had the recession which would inevitably follow, and the branch decided to cut off its limb in Scotland, what would happen to the public money that had been squandered? We have a right to know. There may well be an initial rush for this kind of "lolly" before the election and before the Treasury puts on the brakes. Indeed, I think that that is the intention. Industrialists are already saying that they had better get in before the Treasury finds out what it is committed to. All that might happen before the election. That might do the trick, but we do not know what will happen after the election.
  I understand that the President of the Board of Trade is to arrange a few dinners with, and talk to, leading industrialists. What has he been doing during the last few years? Has he not been doing this? I thought that it was the function of the Board of Trade to find

  987
  out which firms were about to expand. The management corporations which were set up in Scotland, England and Wales are no more than estate managers. Why cannot they go out and advertise? Why cannot they be given a job of work to do? They are very anxious to do it. They have the "know-all" of their own local areas. Why should not they go out and meet these businessmen? They know what can be provided. They know their own localities, and they are the people who are best able to attract industrialists.
  This is welcome as far as it goes, but there are contradictions in it. It is a condemnation of the system that the party opposite believes in, but, even so, there are contradictions in it because this has to be taken in context with all the other things that the Government are doing. Public money is to be poured out to persuade industry to move. But then the Minister of Transport says that, although the Treasury and the Board of Trade are to pour money out to persuade industry to go to these outlying parts, he is to cut the railways to make it more difficult for them to do so.
  The Prime Minister says that these two things are in harmony—Dr. Beeching and Mr. Maudling are in harmony. Let me give the example of Anstruther, in Fife. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) has not tried to get into the debate. This is a scheduled area under the Local Employment Act. In April, 1960, unemployment in Anstruther was 5·7 per cent. In March, 1963, it was 10·1 per cent. The only railway that goes through Anstruther is to be cut by Dr. Beeching's proposals. I do not know how we can attract industrialists to that area by these concessions if there is to be no railway there.
  Let us consider Fife as a whole, which is virtually a development district. The main road into that area from the South will cross the Forth Road Bridge and the Government are insisting that it shall be a toll bridge. The Scotsman, only the other day, begged the Government to look at this again. If the Government really are concerned to solve the unemployment problem in Fife and other parts, they ought not to put this kind of impediment in the way of industrialists.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: The
  988
  same situation exists south of the Forth as in the areas to which my hon. Friend has referred and the unemployment rate is 9·2 per cent. in the Bathgate area.
  Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend knows very well that the local authorities on both sides of the Forth are very much in this together, including the Tory-controlled Edinburgh Council. They realise the importance of getting this free access north and south of the Forth.
  I end by saying how alarmed I was when the President of the Board of Trade said that he would operate the stop-go policy as it had been operated since the Local Government Act came into effect three years ago. That is the process of scheduling, descheduling and rescheduling, thus creating enormous difficulties not only for the management corporations, but for the industrialists themselves. It will be a very big headache for the Inland Revenue to work out all these grants if there is to be scheduling, rescheduling and descheduling.
  The Government said that one of the great merits of the Local Employment Act was its flexibility—the ability to put on to the list and take off by will. The Government get a "stooge" on the back benches opposite to put down a Question and the area is scheduled. This is quite outrageous and makes it impossible to work these grants. I think that the only answer is for the Government to admit that it was a mistake to get these "measles", these "spots", around the country in the form of development districts and to get back to the principle of scheduling areas. Only in that way shall we even attempt to solve this problem. I hope that the Government will have the courage and bigness of mind to accept that they made a mistake in April, 1960. Then, and then only, shall we treat their proposals seriously.
  6.58 p.m.
  Mr. John Maclay: In the years during which I have been a Member of the House of Commons, which are now rising in number, the nature of my interests and latterly my duties have meant that I have spoken on a remarkable variety of subjects. Nevertheless, I have been thinking back as accurately as I can, and I believe that this is the first time that I have ever taken part in a Budget debate, so I hope that the Committee will bear with me.

  989
  For this has been no ordinary Budget debate. Certainly the Chancellor's speech was no ordinary Budget speech in that it does two or three very important and unusual things, one of which is to give us a pulp and paper mill in the Fort William area, and, important as that is, of far wider import is the fact that it introduces for the first time in this country the acceptance of the principle that differential taxation on a geographical basis is possible.
  Then on Thursday we had the very useful crop of advance factories appearing in different parts of the country and today, in the excellent speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, we heard more about where the retraining centres are to be placed. I am grateful for the advance factories part of all these proposals. There is to be one in my constituency at Port Glasgow. I am sure that the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) would not grudge that to the people there any more than the people of Port Glasgow will grudge him the benefit which he has had.
  It has been a most interesting experience watching the expressions of public opinion over the week-end following the first impact of the Chancellor's Budget speech. There is little doubt that the impact of the Budget is increasing as people consider what the Chancellor did and as they realise more and more clearly, even more than they did at the end of an extremely lucid speech, what the Budget does. The Chancellor's speech covered some new ground and it needed a lot of digesting before we could fully appreciate what the results of the Budget could be.
  There has understandably been a general welcome to the spread of tax relief. This welcome is not only because of the way in which the tax relief has been placed but also because this method of tax relief is likely to lead to the most rapid increase in consumption. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) was very much less than fair to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). One or two other hon. Members have also been unfair to my right hon. and learned Friend. This Budget is the inevitable and proper complement to the Budget of my right hon. and learned Friend and the action which he took. The one has made
  990
  the other possible. I repeat what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary)—that the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend was memorable because he proved very clearly the link between the facts which made his Budget right and the policies which he followed right and the facts which make this Budget also right.
  The full significance of the Budget lies not only in the tax reliefs but in the addition of the tax reliefs to the increase in spending. I was delighted by the euphemism for "deficit"—"borrowing requirements"—now used, I think for the first time. As a result of all these operations, there will be a borrowing requirement of £687 million compared with £66 million last year. This makes us realise that the impact of the Budget is much greater than was at first appreciated.
  I sympathise with the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral about Government spending. It is inevitable that this year Government spending should be heavily increased. The important question is whether it will be possible to keep that reasonably under control in future years so that we do not run the risk of another crisis based on excessive Government spending and on Government spending getting out of hand.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor also made it clear that, having studied all the figures and obtained all the Estimates, every Chancellor in the end must make a decision based on his judgment. There are a remarkable number of imponderables and unknown factors involved in the decision. A most striking example which he gave was that a change of only 1 per cent. in our savings habits one way or the other could put his estimates out by no less than £200 million. Perhaps in this era of N.E.D.C. and all that we shall find ourselves in the course of a year quite properly being urged to spend 1s. more or 1s. less in every £5 of our available income. It may well be that this is one of the steps which must be taken and, for this and other reasons, I wonder more and more whether it is not time for us to begin to question the inviolability of our annual accounting system.
  I am delighted that for a year or two Chancellors of the Exchequer have had

  991
  the possibility of using the regulators. It is necessary that these should be available for use between main Budgets. I wonder whether serious thought should be given too to the possibility of revising our system of annual accounting and annual estimating on a Departmental basis. May I take the example of the Health Service? At the beginning of the year the Minister gets his Estimates through. These are argued in great detail. Then the results go through the whole National Health Service. Towards the end of the financial year is a bad time to overspend the Estimates but it is also a bad time to underspend them, even if there have been reasons which have made it almost impossible to avoid doing that. Inevitably there is a tendency for a Department or one of the Services to hurry up its spending towards the end of the financial year even if there is no good reason for doing so. The reason is that normally there is no carry-over of money under-spent into the following year. Equally a Department may prejudice its Estimates for the following year if it appears to be unable to spend what it was granted in the previous year.
  This is a very complicated business, and I will not follow it through tonight, but for many years I have wondered whether we should examine carefully the implications of the tight annual accounting which goes on at present. I commend this to the Chancellor because if he can establish the principle of differential taxation on a geographical basis in this country, then he can do almost anything with the Treasury.
  I turn to my main theme. I do not intend to make a long speech. My theme is the same as that of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton)—the effect of the Budget and the measures which have been announced in the last few days on development districts. The hon. Member for Fife, West seemed to be in a hopeless dilemma. He had to express some appreciation of what the Government had done in the Budget, but the greater part of his speech expressed doubts about it and his major doubt was about the effectiveness of the Local Employment Act. He got into a tangle over Rootes and the B.M.C. development in Scotland. The whole point is that the Local Employment Act was a codifying
  992
  and improving piece of legislation based on the experience of previous years. It was a great improvement on the machinery which existed before that.
  Mr. W. Hamilton: No.
  Mr. Maclay: I have had some experience of what happened under the working of both, and I can assure the hon. Member it was a great improvement. Let no one write down the value of the £81 million. May I give the Scottish figures, which I think are more or less up to date? To the end of February Scotland had had approvals of £42 million out of that £81 million, with a potential employment of 32,000. Of this sum, £33 million bad already been spent.
  Mr. Bence: In the pipeline?
  Mr. Maclay: Hon. Members opposite have asked the impossible—that within three years our capital investment should have been translated into equating the employment figures of Scotland with those of England. I have never claimed, and I think that no Minister has ever claimed, that it could be done in that period. What the Government have been doing through the years is to try to alter the basic structure of the Scottish economy so that we shall be able to equate our employment figures with those south of the Border. It is bound to be a long process. It cannot take place overnight. We have to go on finding methods of improving the machinery for achieving this objective.
  I make no bones about my reference to the pipeline, a word which I have mentioned many times before. If hon. Members are in any doubt about the pipeline, let them look at Bathgate, Linwood and many other places. Of course this cannot lead to full employment overnight and of course Scotland could not expect to contract out of the general falling off in business activity which has taken place throughout the country and throughout the Western world in the last few years. If hon. Members are considering the importance of the Local Employment Act, let them look at the two good years before the general slackening of activity took place.
  What matters is that we should all be in a position now—unions, local authorities, Government and management—to

  993
  take advantage of the next surge of activity, when it comes. I believe that the modifications announced by the Chancellor are extremely important to enable us to take the maximum advantage of what is to come.
  Two improvements were needed. One was on a point about which we heard a lot in the past. I am glad that it has been put right. I refer to the lack of precise knowledge of the extent of assistance until a considerable period of negotiation had taken place with B.O.T.A.C. or the Board of Trade. May I give one example? I was discussing the question with an industrialist who was contemplating a new factory and who had not decided where to go. I met him at 2 p.m. in Scotland. He told me that at noon on that day he had had a telephone call from a country on the other side of the Channel which he had not even visited—I will not be more exact—offering him precise terms of what they would give in the way of grants and loans if he would go there.
  That seems to me a pretty odd way of doing business, but the fact remains that it is what we are competing with at the moment, both over the Channel and in other areas. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has agreed to the standard grants of 25 per cent. and 10 per cent., in addition to the normal benefits under the Local Employment Act.
  The other weakness which is now being put right was the lack of that kind of differential inducement which would influence all long-term thinking as well as short-term thinking on development on the part of industrialists. The Local Employment Act worked well in a period of industrial expansion, but I have the lingering feeling that the average industrialist contemplating in his bath, or wherever industrialists do contemplate the long-term future, particularly when they are not under the pressure of an expanding period in their industry, instead of feeling that when he needed to expand he would go to a development district, used to wonder how he could avoid being cajoled or induced by the Board of Trade to go to such a district.
  Old habits die hard. People do not like moving to new areas, unless they are hard pressed to do so. What will happen in the future with the free depreciation
  994
  allowance is that in all thinking about future development the claims of the development districts will be foremost in an industrialist's mind. I sincerely hope that they will have the results which some hon. Members believe that they will have. I seemed to note a difference of view between the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and the hon. Member for Fife, West as to the effectiveness of these inducements, particularly free depreciation. I believe that they can be very considerable. I hope that all industrialists will have noted them and will be thinking forward, not just short-term, but long-term, as to how they can get the best advantage out of them.
  Some people have questioned the desirability on general grounds of differential taxation on a geographical basis. This view has been expressed not so much in the House of Commons as outside. The fear has been expressed that industry may go to uneconomic sites. That danger exists under any system of direction of industry, which I am delighted to see that the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) has got out of the Labour Party system over the weekend. I do not think that the danger exists under the Local Employment Act procedure as it will be amended.
  Tradition and some prejudices have been inhibiting movement. Therefore, this is not a question of going to uneconomic sites but of going to sites which, for a variety of very good reasons—some not so good—industrialists have never even bothered to contemplate. I have not yet found an industrialist who has moved to Scotland and settled in who is not thoroughly satisfied with his decision.
  However, these moves have meant some big changes for the key workers and for the management of firms, not just for the executive management but for the people who work rather lower down the line. They have meant, for example, a change in their social life and in the schooling of their children. We need a very effective combined operation in Scotland if we are going to make this work. It should be applied not only to services, roads, water and housing in the new areas which are to be developed, but also much thought must be given by communities to how they can make the incomers welcome. This applies not only to sports and com-

  995
  munity facilities but even to cultural facilities. I am certain that a great deal can be done by the unions in Scotland, if they would turn their minds to it, to help to make the arrival of new industries a success. We must make a major effort if we are to reap the full advantage of the steps the Government have announced.
  My last point is about pulp and paper mill. The hon. Member for Hamilton obviously welcomed the pulp and paper mill, but he asked what would have happened if Wiggins Teape had not been prepared to go ahead, and implied that, if this firm had not gone ahead, some Government agency should have done it in its place. All I can say to him is this. I have some knowledge of what has been going on in the last five years in relation to this paper mill. If Wiggins Teape had not been prepared on technical, practical and economic grounds to go ahead, helped by the Government, Heaven help any Government who had set up a Government corporation to run that paper mill. I say that with deliberation.
  The problem is a highly technical one. The difficulties which have been holding up the mill have been partly the availability of raw materials in Scotland and partly the problems connected with the process to be used. The highest praise is due to Dr. Frankel, of Wiggins Teape, for the way he has refused to be put off by the difficulties inevitably encountered in a project like this. The highest praise is also due to the local authority and to the Scottish Council which has been involved in this project since the beginning The highest praise is also due to the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Office for making this project possible, with the help of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ultimately of the President of the Board of Trade.
  One Scottish newspaper described this Budget last week as a tartan Budget. Personally I am inclined to agree with that. It was a very good week for Scotland, finishing up not too badly on Saturday afternoon. In congratulating the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade on what they have done to improve the workings of the Local Employment Act and on what they have done to help these areas which have the sympathy of all of us, I
  996
  would also add my most sincere congratulations to the Secretary of State for Scotland whose hand is visible in much of what we have learned in the last few days.
  7.16 p.m.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: I have no doubt that the right hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) speaks with considerable knowledge of industrial problems in Scotland, but I thought that he went a little far in a dangerous direction by saying that, had one particular firm, which, I should think, is probably a very efficient firm, which I am glad is going ahead with this project, not been able to undertake the project in the Fort William area, that would have been the end of the matter and nothing could have been done to help the area. That seems to me to be an extremely unfortunate and a rather rash proposition.
  Mr. Maclay: I did not say that nothing could be done to help the area. I warned the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) against ever setting up a Government-sponsored corporation to run a complex paper mill in the Western Highlands.
  Mr. Jenkins: It is bad for an area or for a Government to be so completely dependent upon the good will of a particular firm as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested. I doubt very much whether it is the case. I very much hope that this project—this mixed public and private project—will be a great success to the area.
  Earlier in his speech, the right hon. Gentleman said that this was the first time in a long career in the House of Commons that he had spoken in a Budget debate. From the point of view of Chancellors of the Exchequer, at any rate those on his own side of the Committee, I thought that that was probably a pity, because he seemed to take an extremely charitable and warm-hearted attitude towards Budgets in general—last year's Budget was right; this year's Budget is right; all Budgets are right, but the current Budget is even more right than most. That quality of the right hon. Gentleman is one which would make future Conservative Chancellors, if there are any, wish that he will intervene very frequently and with equal benevolence in future Budget debates.

  997
  I would not go quite so far as the right hon. Gentleman went in praising the Budget. I think that probably the best that can be said about this Budget is that what it does it does without great inequity, but that that is not very much. It is worth noting, in passing, before coming on to perhaps more central considerations, that by so doing it makes nonsense of two rather favourite Conservative propositions of the last decade. The first is the view which we have heard from many Chancellors—and, I am sure, from the present Chancellor himself, because, after all, he comes to us having had the benefit of a long experience of defending other people's Budgets, even if not of defending his own until this occasion—that inherent in the reduction of direct taxation is the fact that very big concessions must be given at the top end of the scale.
  On the occasion of all the Budgets during the past decade in which substantial concessions have been given—and by that one means principally the Budgets of 1955 and 1959—it has always been advanced, "It may be the case that these concessions lead to people with very large incomes getting £500 a year"—or whatever it may be, "off their Income Tax bill, but that is absolutely inevitable in reducing direct taxation." I have always been very sceptical about that proposition, and the Chancellor this year has shown that I, and others, were quite right to be sceptical.
  There was no need at all, if one did not want to do it, to introduce concessions in direct taxation that had this funnelling effect which led to very large concessions on the top-scale incomes and very low concessions on the incomes at the bottom of the scale. If the will were there, one could concentrate direct taxation concessions in such a way that even with the higher incomes the absolute amount in money terms was little more than twice that gained by someone on an average income.
  I hope that it will be noted that a great deal of the argument to which we have listened about the inherent nature of direct taxation concessions has been exploded by what the Chancellor has done this year—
  Mr. William Shepherd: Is the hon. Member putting forward that proposition in general terms, that that
  998
  must be taken quite irrespective of the current level of the rates and the graduation?
  Mr. Jenkins: I do not think that I was putting forward a general proposition at all. I were merely saying that the great number of arguments to which we have listened over the better part of a decade have been shown by what the Chancellor has done this year to be extremely fallacious arguments. I made that point, as I shall make the next, in passing, before coming to what seems to me the more essential nature of my criticism of the Budget.
  The next point to be noted is that the reflationary effect of the Budget, such as it is—and I have some doubts, as I will show later, whether it is sufficient—is achieved to a very great extent not by cutting taxation, but by pushing up Government expenditure. The Chancellor got a fairly warm reception from his own benches on Wednesday afternoon, and got a very cool Press on Thursday. He probably got a slightly better Press during the weekend from the "Sundays", but I think that of all the articles I have read that purported to be strongly favourable to him the informed one that was most favourable was that in the Sunday Times, by Mr. Rees-Mogg.
  Mr. Rees-Mogg made this point extremely strongly—to such an extent that it might have been mildly embarrassing to the Chancellor—friendly though the article was in other respects, because what he said about the Chancellor's proposals was:
  "It is this £621 million"—
  by which he meant the size of the increase in the overall deficit—
  "which includes the effect of higher expenditure not covered by new taxation, which really counts; the £260 million of tax concessions is only a minor part of it. The public may not yet have grasped that the Chancellor is reflating more by increasing expenditure than by reducing taxation"
  I do not know whether or not the public have grasped it, but I wonder whether certain right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have grasped it.
  What about the Minister of Defence—has he grasped that this great Budget is achieving at least two-thirds of its effect by pushing up Government expenditure without covering that expenditure by increased taxation? What about the right hon. and learned Gentle-

  999
  man the Member for the Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), to whose speech we listened with great attention this afternoon, but of wham, I am sorry to say, we have not seen very much in the Chamber since.
  I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman started in a very sparkling form. That part of his speech which appeared to have been prepared by his daughter was, I thought, more sparkling than that with which, perhaps, he did not have the same assistance. I also thought, during the earlier part of his speech, that he would, perhaps, find the head of his hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro), to whom he referred, a more inspiring podium than the Dispatch Box to which he was used.
  As the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech progressed, that did not seem entirely true, and I thought that I saw the Chancellor—who, of course, always looks relaxed—looking even more relaxed as his right hon. and learned Friend proceeded, because it was fairly clear to me—and, I should have guessed, to most of the Committee—that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech, whilst obviously an interesting and informed one, was much more a statement of case against wrongful dismissal than a clarion call to the nation for the future.
  I do not know whether the extent to which, as I say, the reflationary effect, such as it is, of the Budget is based overwhelmingly on pushing up Government expenditure and not on pushing out purchasing power through reductions in taxation was fully appreciated. There is at least two of one to one of the other in the balance. However, in spite of that fact, I remain unconvinced that the Budget has done as much as it should have done this year in the circumstances that confront us, and I remain unconvinced from the point of view of catching up the lost economic time of 1962 and the early part of 1963.
  I listened to the Chancellor's speech carefully and I re-read it this morning, but I could not see any indications in it—and the Chancellor will correct me if I am wrong—that he was looking, this year, and the year for which he was budgeting, for a rate of growth appre-
  1000
  ciably above 4 per cent. That, I understood, was his target for the year starting from April, 1963.
  I think that he will get his 4 per cent.—indeed, I would not be surprised if in this forthcoming year he were to get somewhat more than 4 per cent. I should not be surprised if he were to get 5 per cent., or something of that order. But I would still think that, in view of the present state of the economy and of our recent economic history, it is not enough; that that is not the target he should have set himself. I certainly do not think that it is enough from the point of view of taking up the slack in the economy.
  Obviously, in all these matters—and I am sure that the Chancellor would be the first to admit this, as, indeed, he did several times in his Budget speech—one cannot deal with absolutely precise figures. Everyone deals to some extent in guesses, some ill-informed, some possibly better informed, but I should certainly have guessed, without claiming any particular authority for it, that the amount of slack in the economy was very much in excess of 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. and was something much more like 10 per cent. or 12 per cent., without necessarily putting that as the highest figure—it might well be more at present.
  In addition, a rate of growth in this forthcoming year of only 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. will in no way get us back to the N.E.D.C. target of growth starting from 1961 and moving up to 1965–66. We should by this time already be 6 per cent. above the level of production in 1961; instead of that, we are an unspecified amount below the level of production at that time. There was the figure published before January, with its sudden and depressing dip; no one can be quite certain what has happened since. Therefore, there can be no question but that a rate of increase of 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. this year will fall far short of getting us back on this line of advance behind which we have fallen during the last year and a bit.
  The question we must all ask ourselves is whether a rate of increase in national production of this sort, well above 4 per cent. or 5 per cent., would amount to an uncontrolled boom leading automatically and inevitably to a repeat of the 1955 and 1959 performances. I confess freely

  1001
  that the only hesitation I feel about suggesting to the Chancellor that he ought to have gone for a much more rapid rate of increase of national production at present is associated with the level of investment in private industry today. The Chancellor knows very well that it is nearly 20 per cent. below what it was a year ago. In his Budget speech, he predicted, without, not unnaturally, laying much stress on that part of his speech, that it will continue to fall for a little time. This is a depressing prospect.
  It is easily possible to establish too mechanical a link in one's mind between the level of investment and the rate of growth in the economy. To some extant we have all fallen into that fault in the past few years. At the same time, I do not think that one can possibly pretend that to take a rate of investment still relatively low, as it was a year ago, and to cut that rate by one-fifth and in the Budget following to predict a further fall, is a state of affairs one could possibly accept.
  I believe that the Chancellor hopes and thinks that at some stage—and I certainly hope in a not too distant future—there will be a spurt in the rate of investment in private industry, but it is difficult to predict when this will take place. Therefore, there is a case for leaving a certain amount of room in the economy for this to come along without straining the economy when it comes. I am extremely surprised, for these reasons, that the Chancellor should have chosen to give his main stimulus to purchasing power in the form of Income Tax concessions which will not take place until three months from now.
  I should have thought that, above all, he would have wished to get this rapid rate of stimulus in the economy at present, possibly leaving room for the future for private fixed investment, when that should begin to develop, to come up and take the slack at that time. But to proceed on the basis of putting his main weight on concessions which cannot bite until after 5th July seems to me to be approaching this problem from the wrong point of view.
  Subject to that point about the need for a higher rate of investment in private industry, which one looks for as a reversal of recent trends in the not too
  1002
  distant future, I do not see what could have been lost, even from the point of view of being very cautious about the external state of the economy, by going for a higher rate of expansion than the 4 per cent. for which the Chancellor has gone and the 5 per cent. which I believe he might possibly achieve. After all, the theory that exports would be extruded from this country by stagnation at home was decisively thrown out of the window by the Chancellor.
  If the right hon. Gentleman's Budget speech marked any advance in Government economic thinking, it surely lay in that, and however much the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral may try to say that there is a continuous philosophical line between his Budget and that of the present Chancellor, I am sure that he, who is not here to hear the rest of the debate in which he made an important speech, would find it difficult to establish a continuity of thought in this respect between himself last year and the Chancellor on this occasion.
  If, however, as I think rightly, this view that a stagnating home economy automatically produces increased exports is abandoned, what logical case remains for going for a limited measure of expansion, a measure of expansion substantially less than the economy could rightly stand, and one substantially less than is necessary to take up the slack that exists? If the Chancellor is, quite rightly, abandoning this old exploded view that we get high exports by stagnation at home, what remains? If it could be proved that the policies pursued by the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral and other Conservative Chancellors of the past had led to a reshaping of our economy over the past few years, so that it was much more concentrated on goods dominating in the world export markets, that would be an improvement, but I do not believe that that can be shown.
  I know of no evidence that as a result of Conservative squeezing policies our economy has been squeezed into a better shape from the point of view of concentration on industries which really do well in the export markets. Nor do we have a special incentive for exports in the Chancellor's Budget. I am a little more in favour at the present

  1003
  juncture of doing something in this direction than was my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond), who spoke earlier and with whom I normally agree closely.
  I do not think that it is quite good enough that the Chancellor, at this stage in the life of the Government, should say, This is a problem which requires a great deal of study. I am going to appoint a committee and see what happens." It may be the right hon. Gentleman's first year as Chancellor, but it is, after all, the twelfth Budget of this Government. If we are to have a system where no Chancellor lasts more than two years, and a few no more than eighteen months, we cannot have also a system under which every time a new Chancellor comes along everything that has gone before is to be wiped out, without benefit of Treasury research or anything of that sort.
  The Chancellor has not done anything, directly and of itself, to stimulate exports. Therefore, having thrown out the sterile idea that we get exports through stagnation, with what is he left? I think that there are two things. The first is the hope that by getting some sort of incomes policy working, the competitive position of our exports, for this reason, may improve somewhat in the next year or so. The second is the hope that in an economy growing more rapidly, and more fully used than has been the case recently, there will be a chance of reducing unit costs in industry and, therefore, improving the position of our exports from this point.
  I should have thought that on both considerations there was everything to be said for going for a higher level of expansion, compatible with not overloading and overstraining the economy, and that if we could get a 7 per cent., 8 per cent., and 9 per cent. growth in a year, in view of what happened in the past, we would improve the position of our exports from both points of view.
  To take first the wages policy, surely the fact must be admitted by all hon. Members that by chipping away at various attempts at getting a wage freeze or a voluntary incomes policy we do not enormously influence the rate by which wages or other incomes go up. We may reduce the rate a little, by 1 per cent.
  1004
  or conceivably 1½ per cent. a year, but in a modern economy, with free wage-bargaining and with anything approaching full employment, there is extraordinary stability in the wage increases which occur. But what varies enormously is the rate of increase in productivity with which we have to balance the wage increases.
  Therefore, in these circumstances, from the point of view of the effect of wage costs upon exports, the highest level of increase in productivity which one is reasonably able to go for offers the best prospect of improving the competitive position of our exports. The same factor applies very much to the unit cost side. If we can get a higher level of production in industry, average costs per unit of output will be somewhat lower and to this extent we put ourselves in a better competitive position.
  I find it difficult to understand whether the Chancellor has made up his mind to try to get over this difficult hump of the relationship of expansion to our balance of payments position. Most of the evidence is that, in the short run, this country, with the present shape of its economy, begins, during the initial stages of the boom, to import more than it exports. What we have tended to do on too many occasions has been to become frightened by the early manifestations of this and to cut back. But this cutting back has done nothing at all to improve the long-term competitive position of our exports, and it has certainly done a good deal to harm our general rate of growth.
  At some time, we have to get over this hump. If we could get over this short-term hump, we could, I have no doubt, sustain a rate of growth over a number of years which would improve the competitive position of our exports. Growth as opposed to non-growth may harm the balance of payments for six months, or a year, or conceivably for eighteen months, but over two, three, four or five years, it would, I believe, have exactly the reverse effect. What we must do is get through the extremely difficult interim period.
  I cannot be sure whether the Chancellor, in his rather half-hearted approach to expansion this year, has, in fact, decided to make a brave attempt to break through that barrier which has bedevilled our economy in the past. It is extremely

  1005
  important that we should do so. I do not believe in being alarmist about the state of world trade, or the general economic prospects throughout the West, although the Chancellor said, rightly, I think, that the prospect this year was less encouraging from the point of view of world trade than it was last year. I do not know how one reconciles those views with the need for a very cautious Budget last year and the need for a much more expansionary Budget this year; but If leave that aside.
  There can be no doubt, I think, that the world trade outlook is not particularly encouraging at present. However, there is a danger that, particularly in view of the new disunity, at least the economic disunity in Europe and, perhaps, in the West as a whole, which I regard as one of the worst consequences of the Brussels breakdown, we could be entering a period in which we should face more deflationary and more restrictionist tendencies in the world than we have for a long time.
  It is extremely important that, at the outset of this period. Her Majesty's Government, of whichever party, should say, "We are for expansion. We want to go on with expansion, and we want world monetary and trading policies which will help us. We shall not ourselves turn to restrictive measures of a monetary, tariff or restrictionist sort on imports unless we are absolutely forced to do so. We appeal to others to work with us to make this expansion possible." The Chancellor has given that message in a very muted form. I wish that he could have given it in a much clearer voice.
  7.43 p.m.
  Mr. John Biffen: It is always a great delight to listen to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), though his speeches usually put rather an onus on whoever is called to follow him. I very much endorse the hon. Gentleman's concluding remarks, particularly those in which he attacked the concept of British policy reverting to some kind of economic autarchy. I hope that his words were not entirely lost upon his right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) who has just left the Chamber. Briefly, because I know that many hon. Members wish to speak on the Budget, I wish to address myself to just three
  1006
  points: the balance of payments situation, the Income Tax changes proposed in the Budget, and the question of the development districts.
  I make no apology whatever for returning to the subject of exports which, rightly, has featured in most of the speeches in the debate, but I am a little concerned about the ease with which is trotted out the argument that any strain on the external situation will be assured by borrowing, the argument being that that is what reserves are for. This is very comforting. but I have seen no one particularly anxious to do a very detailed analysis of what is likely to happen to our external situation in the coming year. I fancy that this reluctance is due to the fact that the results would not be too comforting.
  The hon. Member for Stechford quite rightly drew attention to the Chancellor's own caution about our prospects in world trade and their effect upon our export performance. Our export performance in 1962 over 1961 showed an increase of only 3 per cent., which invites the conclusion, on the basis of the Chancellor's remarks, that perhaps not even that target will be reached during the coming year.
  Unlike the hon. Member for Stechford, I am a shade alarmist about the trading situation in the West. Although I am as anxious as any hon. Member to see the Kennedy Round successfully negotiated under the G.A.T.T., I am not over-sanguine about the prospects of its successful conclusion. This being so, I think that our export position does give cause for concern. Coupled with that—in a way, this is even more important—I am a little concerned about the trend of imports in the coming year. The general assumption so far has been that the expansion we are likely to see taking place in 1963 will affect stock building. This, of course, is true. However, while during the Common Market negotiations we heard a great deal about the changing pattern of our exports, we sometimes tended to pay insufficient attention to the changing pattern of our imports. As trade becomes liberalised, any increase in home demand quite often throws up a fairly sharp rise in imports of consumer goods. I wonder, sometimes, whether we take sufficient account of this.
  The last occasion when we had an

  1007
  overall deficit something like that which is planned this year was after the 1959 Budget, and the 1960 import figures showed an increase of 13½ per cent., a very considerable rise well above that which, I suspect, many of us expect this time. It is true that one cannot do a direct comparison with what happened before, and I do not think that one would expect to see the same volume of importation of French motor cars and French sheet steel. It is very fashionable in the Committee to talk in the language of the National Economic Development Council in looking forward to future benefits, but it seems, on a good deal of the evidence available, that we are unlikely to reach the N.E.D.C. target of a 5 per cent. increase in exports, although we are all too likely to exceed the N.E.D.C. target of 4 per cent. increase in imports. It is said that this can be carried on the reserves. This may be so, but I should like to feel a shade more certain than I am at present that all these matters have been fully taken into account.
  Now, my second point, the Chancellor's tax changes. Clearly, it is a matter of judgment whether £269 million is the desirable figure for the Chancellor's concessions. Many hon. Members opposite have argued that it should be a good deal more. I belong to a rather more cautious school, thinking that even £269 million might be edging on the limits of generosity. But, on the other hand, I am not one of those who think that this is in itself inflationary, not only because of the considerable amount of resources not being currently utilised and which certainly could be utilised without bringing about inflation, but because it is not yet clear how much of the £269 million will find its way back into national savings. I should be interested to know how much of the £700 million deficit to which reference has been made by the hon. Member for Stechford will be financed out of national savings.
  According to today's Financial Times, Lord Mackintosh said:
  "I expect another good year ahead, therefor, especially when the new Savings Certificate is available. I hope, with the Chancellor, that the movement will be able to play a significant part in helping to bridge the overall deficit anticipated in the Budget of nearly £700 million."
  1008
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget statement:
  "As the Committee knows there are other public funds from which the Exchequer can and does borrow, and other sources, such as national savings, to which it can turn, before resorting to the market."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April, 1963; Vol. 675, c. 475.]
  I am sure that many hon. Members, especially those who are concerned lest the total effect of the tax remissions tend to be inflationary, would be interested to hear the Treasury spokesman expand a little more on my right hon. Friend's statement.
  Unlike the hon. Member for Stechford, I was glad that the concession of £269 million was made through Income Tax, and, although he did not say that he would have preferred Purchase Tax remissions, my impression was that he would not have been averse to further Purchase Tax remissions.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: My preference was not for direct or indirect concessions but for something which would apply to April rather than to July. It was a time consideration.
  Mr. Biffen: I thank the hon. Gentleman. The last thing that I would wish to do would be to put words into his mouth which he did not utter.
  The reason I am glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has avoided making further Purchase Tax concessions and has channelled his concessions through Income Tax is that there is some evidence to suggest that some of the commodities which carry Purchase Tax are recovering quite well. The level of hire purchase renewals is now so depressed that one would have been very gloomy indeed if one did not expect an upturn. The hire purchase information published on 2nd April suggested that motor vehicle sales were now doing remarkably well. I noticed, again from the Financial Times, that refrigerator manufacturers this year have had their best February on the home market since the peak sales year of 1960, according to the Domestic Refrigerator Development Committee.
  I now turn to my third point, which concerns the development districts. I must admit that here I shall deploy an argument which has a direct constituency bearing. I note the very considerable financial advantages which are now being

  1009
  given to companies which go to development districts, but I hope that these advantages will be coupled with a rather more relaxed attitude towards the issuing of industrial development certificates. These words will not fall easily on the ears of many hon. Members opposite, but there are a number of areas—my own constituency is a case in point—in which one can have an unfortunate combination of circumstances. There can be high unemployment in a small localised district which cannot by any stretch of the imagination be justifiably included in a development district. There can also be quite substantial hidden unemployment, because certainly in rural areas there is no tradition of women registering with employment exchanges as there is in urban areas. Thirdly, there can be rural depopulation. A combination of these circumstances has a depressing effect on life and the attitude in such an area and, when a local authority is successful enough in deploying its case to any industrialist to the extent of persuading him that its area would be a good area in which to put a small factory, I am cruelly disappointed when the Board of Trade intervenes to say that this should not happen.
  The case that I have clearly in mind is Market Drayton, which, with unemployment in the region of, I believe, 6 per cent., has twice recently been refused an industrial development certificate, As I am told when talking to industrialists who wish to come to Market Drayton, one of the great advantages of this small market town is its proximity to the motorway M.4. This very much underlines the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) that the industrial infrastructure should be first charge on increases in public expenditure.
  I am an optimist, because I believe that the United Kingdom today is probably in a far better cost situation vis-à-vis its competitors than it has been over recent years. This is not entirely because of our own self-restraint. It has certainly been aided by the fact that European costs have been rising fairly rapidly. Therefore, it would be very discouraging if these advantages were thrown away on any precipitate rush towards a consumer binge, and I am fairly certain that that is
  1010
  not the intention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  I still think that the main problem which confronts this country in its economic challenge is the necessity for change, and perhaps even structural change, in our economy and a reallocation of resources where new demands exist, and I hope that in our concern for the very real social problems which exist today we will not become too much spokesmen for areas of decay and neglect the new industries. I think that for this Committee to debate and expose all the difficulties which go with declining industries is possibly not always the best use of our time. I believe that we should spend at least equal time examining and praising the virtues and dynamic of the industries of the South.
  I adhere unashamedly to the belief that, in the long run, businessmen rather than civil servants know best where to locate their industries. I hope that we will see expansion not as an alternative to industrial and commercial change but perhaps as an anaesthetic to dull the pain and harshness which go with industrial change. I think that the Budget has been welcomed as fair in this respect, and that perhaps it will go some way towards doing that.
  I was delighted that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) called the Budget fair. I am not sure that I followed him when he said that agriculture got a soft ride, but perhaps he will develop that point on another occasion. It certainly seems to me that this Budget is designed to promote a successful incomes policy, and by it I believe that my right hon. Friend has put a very real responsibility on those in authority outside this Committee. I very much agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), who said on 4th April:
  "Yesterday, the Chancellor went a tremendously long way towards making the climate of opinion far the introduction of an incomes policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1963; Vol. 675, c. 679.]
  That is a compliment from across the Floor of the Chamber which is very welcome, and I am sure that we all very much hope that the hon. Member is right. I disagree with those—and I think that the hon. Member for Gloucester would be among them—who talk as if there were some dramatic way of demonstrating

  1011
  our alternative to the Common Market. It may be that there is no dramatic way of demonstrating what we intend to do after the Brussels breakdown, but I believe that a successful incomes policy could easily be the most effective answer to those who have sought to exclude Britain from Europe.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. William Ainsley: I trust that the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) will forgive me if I do not follow him but concentrate rather on the problems that face us in the North-East. As the Minister of Labour reminded us today, the North-East has 6 per cent. unemployment, which is more than double what we find over the average for the rest of the country. That, however, does not reveal the full extent of the problem.
  Recently, I asked a Question about the number of workers who had exhausted their right to unemployment benefit and I was astounded to find that in the northern region, over 8,000 had exhausted their benefit rights. If we think of this in terms of family life, we can easily accept a figure of 24,000. That is the extent of this problem which faces us in the North-East.
  I want, however, to direct attention particularly to the areas upon which attention has not been focused. The Government appointed Lord Hailsham as the Minister for the North-East. He visited Newcastle, Sunderland and Middlesbrough and dealt with the problem concerning the East Coast. I do not wish in any way to minimise the problems there, but I want rather to deal with the problems in the west of Durham, in places like the constituencies of Blaydon, Consett, Bishop Auckland and Durham, North-West, which have never been mentioned or visited by Lord Hailsham.
  I have the honour to represent the constituency in which I was born, where I have worked with the people and where I have shared their joys and sorrows, their aspirations and their hopes. The constituency of North-West Durham covers an area of 264 square miles, including some of our loveliest scenery. It stretches from the Pennine Range, with work of afforestation, and
  1012
  includes hill farmers and small farmers, who have been extremely upset by the policy pursued by the Government in negotiating to join the Common Market. These people had invested the whole of their savings in their work and they were asking what was to become of them as small farmers.
  Bishop Auckland, which is not in my constituency, has 9·2 per cent. unemployment. Moving further west, however, into the sub-office of the Bishop Auckland area. I have had figures from the clerk of the local authority showing that there is 11·5 per cent. unemployment; and 130 men are under notice to finish work at the collieries.
  Moving further around, I come into the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Grey). The employment exchange for that area gave the unemployment figure as 4·7 per cent., but as I move into the West I can double that figure. In the Brandon Urban District, Hedley Hope Colliery, Waterhouses Colliery, Esh Winning Colliery and New Brancepeth Colliery have recently closed down and there is nothing to offer to the people of the area.
  Moving further around, I come into Lanchester and Burnhope. The Minister admits that these places come into the area of the Consett Employment Exchange, which shows an unemployment figure of 5·8 per cent. I realise the employment position of the Consett Iron Company, but I face a different problem in my constituency. The Minister of Labour cannot assess fully the problem of unemployment and depression which is found in the whole of my constituency.
  The west of Durham includes the older parts of the coal field. We were renowned for the by-product plants that produced the finest coke in the world. My home town was known as the coke town. Within a radius of 5 miles are to be found the townships of Crook, Willington and Bishop Auckland, all of which are famous in the amateur football world as winners of the amateur football cup. In industrial relations, these people are second to none. Anybody who examines the records will find that there has been no trouble in the way of industrial unrest. I can say from 15 years' experience and as secre-

  1013
  tary of a miners' lodge that there was never a day's stoppage. These are the men who are now cast upon one side.
  At the beginning of the century, there was always a shortage of manpower in the mining industry. No other industry came to compete for the manpower. Since then, we have had various economic measures to make industries pay. We may get an accountant like Dr. Beeching, or even Lord Robens, and we realise the problems that they face. It is, however, the responsibility of the Government to ensure that a diversification of industry comes to replace the basic industries as they die out.
  Our five by-product plants each employed 250 men. These men, skilled at their own occupation, cannot take up other work. It is they who will form the reservoir of unemployment. All the while there has been a transfer of men from the west to the east, but only those, as in the case of professional footballers, who have come to the top in their training can do well in the mining industry. When they reach the age of 40 or 50, they have to leave the coal face and go on to datal work. When we are told about the high pay that men earn in the mining industry, it should be remembered that two-thirds of them are on datal work.
  No longer can we transfer these men across the County of Durham. The west is now left with the kind of problem that my area is facing. We have eight secondary schools, but there is no hope of finding employment for the young people when they leave the schools. I have pursued the idea of converting Brancepeth Camp into an industrial training centre. It is Government property. The War Office was prepared to hand it over to the Ministry of Labour and in July, I received information that 24 people would be accommodated at the camp and that it might be possible to take six adults for retraining.
  What happened? The Minister of Labour made some contacts, and the chairman of the Durham Division of the National Coal Board promised to squeeze 20 into the Tursdale Camp, a mining training centre. Why is this? It is because of the drift from the mining area. Mining is folding up in the west. Tursdale in just on the fringe of the mining area, and the development is taking place to the east where the deeper mines are. That is why
  1014
  even now there is a projected scheme, costing £70,000, for a new training centre at Seaham Harbour. The Minister of Labour has connived with the chairman of the Durham Division of the National Coal Board to take over Tursdale gradually as the new centre comes into being.
  However, one ought to realise the problem that we face in the west. The Minister has admitted it. It is only three miles from the camp, but one cannot travel direct to it. One has to travel five, six or seven miles by the old-fashioned stone wall or hawthorn hedge marking the old cart roads. So the movement of young people to the east leaves a decadent west in Durham. The creeping paralysis that starts with Blaydon, Consett, Bishop Auckland and the north-west of Durham is now moving towards the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Durham and Sedgefield (Mr. Slater) as the mining industry falls away from the west to the east. The problem in the west of Durham has never been tackled by the Government. When I questioned the Minister, his reply was that these were travel-to-work areas. I have with me some correspondence from a local councillor in the Weardale area, who says that it will take more than three hours to travel from Weardale to Darlington if Dr. Beeching's proposals go forward. It is at Darlington that I get on the train to travel to Kings Cross.
  We must get out of the mentality of Whitehall. We must realise that the provinces that we represent have been neglected for the past 10 years by this Tory Government. We are now seeking to redress some of the wrongs that have been committed over that period. This is an admission of the failure of the Local Employment Act, and I am proving it. This area was scheduled when the Act was introduced, but the unemployment figure has gradually increased until it now stands at 11·5 per cent.
  In the debate on the North-East Coast we were promised an advance factory. A month before that the Government were building no advance factories. When my colleagues from Scotland had their debate they were promised advance factories. Then came our debate on the North-East Coast, and we were promised a factory. We have a vacillating Government. They have no policy, and that

  1015
  is why we condemn them. They have had a stagnant economy. I do not blame the industrialists, but they have not expanded in the way they should into the development districts. That is why the problem in the development districts has snowballed.
  According to information received from the Ministry in reply to a Question, 338 industrial development certificates were issued in these areas last year. With regard to the Local Employment Act, without applying to the Board of Trade—and there need be no reference to the Ministry—industrialists who obtain planning permission from the local authority can extend existing factories by 5,000 sq. ft. There is nothing to stop them expanding for 5,000 sq. ft. and then obtaining local planning permission for another 5,000 sq. ft. extension. As we travel to and from the North-East we see what is going on in the London region. Until the Government seek to plan for the whole of the country, we shall find that slowly but surely—many times I have wished it would happen—the traffic in London will grind to a standstill. Yet all the while we are denuding the countryside.
  What will happen if we pursue Dr. Beeching's plan? He has published a good Report, and I have nothing against it; but the Government must accept responsibility for its social, industrial and political implications. The Government are building an advance factory, which has been agreed by the Ministry, in Crook, but under the Beeching plan the service from Crook to the main line at Darlington is to be stopped. We are facing our problem because there is no co-ordination between Government Departments. The Minister of Housing and Local Government gives local authorities permission to go on with their building programme. Yet in the Crook and Willington urban district there are about 25,000 people and in the Brandon urban district a new township of 20,000 people is being built, and all the while there is no work for them. New schools are being planned.
  The Minister of Education visited Crook a few months ago. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour followed a short while after and addressed the Conservative Association.
  1016
  What was his subject? It was not the problem of new schools or education in the area, and from my 20 years' experience on the local authority I know the problem that we have been facing. It was not the problem of juvenile unemployment and not the problem of adult unemployment. It was the Government's negotiations over the Common Market. Because the Government were banking on our going into the Common Market they are now bereft of policy, and the sooner they go to the country the better it will be for the people I have the honour to represent.
  8.18 p.m.
  Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I am sure that the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Ainsley) will excuse me if I do not enter into the problems in his part of the country. We have a great appreciation of the beautiful countryside there and of the most excellent footballers who come from his area. I would merely observe that what the Chancellor has done in his Budget through depreciation and capital allowances, and so on, and also the development that is going on in the eastern part of the country, should help the employment situation in the hon. Member's part of the country in the long run.
  Amidst the welter of words about the Budget that we have heard and read one facts stands out, and that is that it has pleased an enormous number of people, and I am sure that it will go on pleasing a great many people for a long period. After hearing my right hon. Friend's Budget speech, I calculated that there were nearly 30 items of tax relief or beneficial tax changes in it, which is substantial. I would merely say how excellent I think the free depreciation allowances are in the development districts.
  As deputy-chairman of the Wider Share Ownership Committee, which is trying to extend the number of people who take a personal stake in British industry, I must say that I was very pleased that the tax on stock transfer was reduced to 1 per cent., because I am sure that it will help that movement forward. I cannot understand why it should be put off until 1st August, however, even if that is the date for the operation of the Finance Bill when it

  1017
  becomes an Act, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will note that some of us may put down Amendments to the Bill to advance that date if possible.
  As I spoke on this subject during the proceedings on the Finance Bill last year, I think that justice is now being done to Rolls-Royce and to Crewe, who were unjustly punished out of all proportion because of the provision concerning the allowance for expensive motor cars in last year's Budget.
  My first reaction to this Budget was to wonder whether the Income Tax reliefs and the abolition of Schedule A tax would not be likely to be spent on the lighter type of consumer goods. This would not assist in alleviating the difficulties of our heavy industries, which are at the heart of our problem. I believe that the capital allowances will help as the money percolates through the economy, but this will take time. I am willing to suspend judgment for the moment, except to say that if, by next September or October, we have not got our heavy industries going again, I hope that my right hon. Friend will use the regulators that he still has and take further steps in favour of these industries.
  I want to concentrate my remarks on exports. I hope that I will be excused in doing so, because I sat through the debate last Thursday when my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade spoke but I was squeezed out by a rather lengthy speech by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). Our balance of payments must be righted not by borrowing, but only by the honest sweat of our brow. I recognise that the Chancellor considers that to some extent expansion will bring about increased exports because companies will have more money for export promotion and, therefore, our exports may increase automatically. But we must keep constantly before us the fact that if we are to increase production by 4 per cent. annually we must also increase exports by 5 per cent. That is a sentiment which I would like to see more often expressed on the benches opposite. I hope that the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) will acknowledge that when he winds up the debate tonight for the Opposition.
  1018
  We must not only have a 2½ per cent. annual increase in exports, which amounts to £100 million increase per year. The figure must be 5 per cent., or £200 million a year. In my view, our exports are concentrated in the efforts of far too few companies. I understand that the motor car industry exports £642 million of goods a year, which is 17 per cent. of our total exports. These include vehicles, spare parts, components, tractors, tyres and other goods. But when one analyses the figures one finds that 90 per cent. of these exports are carried out by 12 companies—seven big vehicle groups, four component manufacturers and one tractor manufacturer. Thus, 15 per cent. of our total exports are being carried by 12 companies.
  From the figures for other industries—for instance, I.C.I., in the chemicals industry and other large companies—one can easily conclude that the bulk of our exports are being carried out by the top 20 companies. According to the Board of Trade tables, the general rule appears to be that the larger the firm the larger the proportion of its exports. That is natural, because smaller firms have not the staff and resources to carry out big export campaigns, and if one of them gets an order in Birmingham it will not bother about Barcelona; and if it gets business in Manchester it will not go to Melbourne.
  This leads me to what I think is the grave necessity for some form of tax incentive. I am glad that the Chancellor is setting up a committee to inquire into this, but I was very surprised to hear what the President of the Board of Trade had to say on it. I would have interrupted him if I could have believed my cars, but I could not, and I have since confirmed my impression in HANSARD. My right hon. Friend said:
  "We believe that Britain would be a certain loser in an incentives race, so we do not intend to start one up."
  The point is that all our competitors already have some form of tax incentives, so if we adopted one we should only be reducing our handicap. My right hon. Friend went on:
  "Since tax incentives and subsidies for exporters are ruled out, the Committee may ask me: what incentive is there to export?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1963; Vol. 675 c. 672–3.]

  1019
  Are tax incentives ruled out? If they are, that is contrary to the Chancellor's view and presumably the view of this Committee. Have the Government already made up their mind not to go in for a scheme of tax incentives?
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Edward du Cann): No.
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: I am glad to hear that, because we want first to have the impartial investigation by Mr. Richardson.
  In Germany, there is the turnover tax. A manufacturer gets a cash refund Pr a drawback on his exports. In France, the T.V.A. tax is levied at each stage of manufacture. If the manufacturer sells goods for £100, for instance, the tax may be £20. First of all, there is no T.V.A. tax on exports and, in addition, the exporter may deduct the amount of tax passed on to him in the cost of material he has bought. These calculations are done on a monthly basis, so that a French exporter, in making his actual export, gets a cash refund. That system is a direct incentive to both large and small companies to export.
  I think that we could have that system here in place of Purchase Tax, which is no incentive to exporting because there is no draw back to exporters when they make their actual exports. For the T.V.A. tax there are different rates according to different commodities—only 6 per cent. on coal and oil and 20 per cent. on jewellery and furs—but the significant thing is that it is to be adopted, I understand, throughout the Common Market.
  The Australians have a system of tax relief on expenditure on export promotion. Every £1 spent on this receives taxation allowance. That, I think, is within the terms of G.A.T.T. and well worth considering. In due course, we will have to take some such steps as these.
  I turn from the question of a tax incentive to some practical steps to improve our balance of payments in the present position. Now that we are not now in the Common Market, we could do more to increase our trade with E.F.T.A. The Chancellor has made a second reduction in the protective part of the revenue duties on a number of goods coming from other E.F.T.A. countries. We should press on our E.F.T.A. friends to reduce
  1020
  their revenue duties where they are too large and are holding up our exports.
  For instance, Norway imposes a 30 per cent. revenue duty on motor cars. I am told that if it were reduced by half the price of a popular British family car would come down by £150 and our car exporters could double the amount of cars sold, from 10,000 to 20,000. If that reduction were made the duty could be kept on exports from Common Market countries. We should ask for the revenue duty to be reduced for E.F.T.A. partners, but kept on for Common Market countries. If revenue is required it could be obtained by spreading the sales tax over all the motor cars imported. Finland, another E.F.T.A. country, has a duty of 14 per cent. If that were halved we could reduce the price by £78 and put up our exports from 6,000 to 10,000 cars. E.F.T.A. countries should do these things to keep in line with the spirit of the E.F.T.A. partnership.
  I was delighted to hear the Chancellor say that he would tie loans to Ghana, India and Pakistan to definite orders for British exports. The U.S.A. has been doing this sort of thing for years. If the U.S.A. makes a loan to India for tractors the tractors have to be American ones. I see no reason why we should not earmark our loans in this way on a much larger scale.
  To stave off the chance of an import crisis which might come later in the year, will my right hon. Friend consider instructing all Government Departments to scrutinise most carefully imports of foreign goods, materials and equipment coming to this country in the next few months, because we may be on a knife edge, and with growth of expansion there might be imports by the autumn which would cause an "expansionist threat". That seems worth considering.
  I was also pleased to hear that the Chancellor is still considering the simplification of taxes. I think that we have to reach the day when company taxation is all on one system, perhaps based on 45 per cent. of profits, and taxation of individuals is all on another personal system. I cannot see why Surtax and Income Tax should not be incorporated on one graduated scale and paid under P.A.Y.E. I know the difficulties and arguments against that, but we have to reduce the time spent on these computations.

  1021
  I do not hold the view, which is held so generally by many hon. Members, that expansion of our industry is purely a matter of economics. I do not think that it is. Expansion, or lack of expansion, comes from something much deeper and from difficulties which will face the Labour Party if it ever comes to power. They are in the British way of life. We are low in the league of growth because we are a very poor country in the matter of applying science. Applied science is one of our weaknesses. We have some splendid fundamental, basic ideas in science, but we take a very long time before we give them commercial application.
  The machine tool trade has hardly scratched the surface compared with the automatic type of machine tools produced in America, Germany, Sweden and Switzerland. We have been very slow in producing a front-wheel drive or a rear-wheel drive car, but it has been popular on the Continent for very many years.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: We have both.
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: We have both, but we were very slow in introducing them. The general view was that this type of car would not be very acceptable in Britain; therefore it was not produced.
  The fuel cell was discovered by Sir William Grove, in 1842, 120 years ago. It is a method of making electricity without mechanical means, by mixing two gases. If it is successful commercially it will produce a wonderfully mobile way of producing electricity anywhere—in the desert or anywhere else. Yet I wager 100 to 1 that the Americans will bring out the first practical and commercial fuel cell.
  Why does this kind of thing happen? It may be that in England we have such a love of classical education and the humanities, even a love of the horse, and lack adaptability and fear being vulgar. We forget that the first British motor car was not produced until ten years after the Germans and the French had produced theirs, and not until after the early 1890s, when the French had already won the Paris to Toulouse race at an average speed of 16 m.p.h. The motor car was certainly looked on as being very vulgar when it first came out.
  Mr. Mitchison: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that British business has been for long founded on ignorance and integrity? Does he think that they are disappearing?
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: I am certainly not going into that. What I am saying is that our way of life and our love of a classical education, and so on, does not assist our rapid application of new ideas to commercial life. There are all sorts of inhibitions in this country about producing new ideas. I have given one or two examples of how conservative the British way of life is in so many ways. For instance, people think there must be a railway line to every village. Even the trade union structure, with 394 separate unions, is one of the most conservative things in the whole world.
  For the best use of our technical resources in future, whatever Government are in power, there will have to be more planning. The shipbuilding industry will have to be concentrated just as the aircraft and cotton industries and the railways have been or are being concentrated, because we have to release engineers to the lighter and newer trades. To achieve expansion in the way so many hon. Members want, we must remodel and reinvigorate the British way of life. That may bring about a good deal of disturbance and distaste, because of the changes which will be necessary.
  8.36 p.m.
  Mr. Ifor Davies: The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) opened his remarks by stating that, despite the welter of words already uttered in this debate, he felt sure a lot of people would welcome the Budget. I was reminded during his remarks of a comment made by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) who stated that a Chancellor of the Exchequer must accept everything with gratitude but take nothing for granted. I would say that he may accept with gratitude all the compliments raised from that side of the Committee but he should not take for granted that we on this side will embrace all those compliments.
  The hon. Member in the opening part of his speech dealt with free depreciation and the development districts. This was part of the theme of the Minister of Labour when he opened the debate this afternoon. In the short time I have at

  1023
  my disposal I should like to concentrate my remarks on the theme for the development districts.
  I feel that there is a tendency in the Committee these days when we discuss unemployment to refer particularly—rightly so, of course—to the problems in Scotland and the north-east of England, and I can very much confirm how grave those problems are, but I should like to mention particularly the problems in the Principality of Wales, and I should like to put the matter in perspective because the figures of unemployment in the Principality are also very alarming. In the March report in the Ministry of Labour Gazette we find that whereas in northern districts there was 7·1 per cent. and in Scotland 6·2 per cent., ours in Wales also stood at about 6 per cent. I understand that the latest figures show a drop of 1 per cent., but we are still third in the league if I may put it that way, and so it is a matter of grave importance to Wales. I hope that Ministers, when they are considering these figures, will not forget how very great a problem and how important a problem these figures show Wales to have.
  The point which must be emphasised more and more in these debates, a point which was brought out very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton), is the failure of the Local Employment Act. If I remember rightly, he instanced the remarkable figure of unemployment in the development districts of 4·5 per cent. when the Measure was introduced as compared with a figure of 7·7 per cent. today. I would refer particularly to the problem of development districts in Wales. In those districts in Wales the unemployment figures vary from 5 per cent. to 12 per cent.
  I would emphasise what the Minister of Labour said this afternoon. If I remember aright, he said that he would listen with attention to the case put in this debate about these areas. I understand that he still has an open mind.
  In considering the development districts, it is essential that the problem should be dealt with regionally and that areas should not be considered piecemeal. This is especially important in Wales and in particular in my own constituency. The Swansea Valley was scheduled as a development district but
  1024
  was taken off the list for priority—I believe that the phrase which the President of the Board of Trade used was that it had been put on the stop list. Will the Economic Secretary clarify whether although it is on the stop list, it will still qualify for free depreciation?
  Mr. du Cann: Any area which is on the stop list will qualify for free depreciation allowance.
  Mr. Davies: I am obliged for that information. I plead with the President of the Board of Trade to reinstate areas scheduled as development districts but on the stop list so that they have the full qualifications for the Budget's benefits. If areas on the stop list are to have the benefit of free depreciation, it is only one step more to extend the other benefit, having regard to the unemployment figures.
  More than any other area, the Swansea Valley has suffered from the contraction of its native industries, especially heavy industry. Many collieries have closed. The last steel works at Pontardawe closed last year. No new industries have come in because there is no incentive for them to do so, because the area is on the stop list. I ask for especial attention for the problems of this area.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride), in an admirable maiden speech this afternoon, also argued for the Swansea area. He is a Scot, but I welcome him as an ally in the Principality. I emphasise what he said about the Swansea district and Swansea Valley having the grave problems of derelict areas. A major contribution to the area has been made by a joint effort between Swansea University and the Nuffield Foundation in helping to clear the Landore derelict area for the community's benefit. It is sometimes said that Wales has no real problems of unemployment now, but the position in parts of Wales is so serious that the whole of South-West Wales and Mid-Wales and North Wales should be scheduled as an area deserving the benefits of the Budget.
  The Minister of Labour this afternoon emphasised what he called the human problems. I congratulate the Chancellor also on using the phrase "human problems" in his Budget statement. It has been said already today that the

  1025
  Budget is noteworthy because of this difference from previous Budgets, for it deals not only with economic theory and the problems of imports and exports, but with the human problems, and it is the first Budget I have heard to show this concern with human problems. The Minister of Labour also spoke of severance pay and redundancy, but I will pass over those problems, far I have promised to be brief.
  The third subject mentioned by the Minister of Labour was training. In connection with training in industry, when we talk about the need for technological changes and the need for technicians, there is a tendency to overlook the fact that it is the skilled craftsman who is the background of industry. Technical changes are likely to alter the skills required, but they will not reduce industry's need for, and dependence on, craftsmen as such, and no increase in the number of technicians will be of any value unless the craftsmen are available to back them up. With our reputation for providing skilled craftsmen, it would be the height of folly to overlook the importance of the craftsman, and I welcome the emphasis which has been placed on this human problem by referring to the need for training which has been one of the themes of today's debate.
  One aspect of the human problem has not been mentioned. I am referring to the relationship between increased productivity, which in turn is related to incomes, and joint consultation in industry. We have a pretty good record for industrial relations, but that record is still not good enough. I am not satisfied that joint consultation, in the real sense of the word, which is essential if we are to respond to the appeal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is sufficiently practised, or in reality, is as effective as it ought to be.
  Many industrial disputes today are the result of human problems, to use the Chancellor's term. They are the direct result of emotional disturbances and poor communications between management and men. The truth is that despite the good work which has been done by the Ministry of Labour's industrial relations officers, the T.U.C., and many other organisations, we have barely started to study the human problem of manage-
  1026
  ment. Indeed, it is a sad fact that we spend more on advertising than we do on industrial research.
  I submit that expansion without inflation, the theme of the Budget, and increased productivity, together with their human problems, the theme of today's debate, are complementary to good industrial relations, which means joint consultation in its true sense. I submit that this Budget will fail in its economic objective if mutual trust, confidence, and good will are not established in British industry.
  8.48 p.m.
  Mrs. Patricia McLaughlin: I hope that the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. I. Davies) will forgive me if I do not comment on some of the important points in his speech except to say that I agree with what he said about the importance of human relations.
  In welcoming, in general, the new thought and line in the Budget, and, in particular, the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), who emphasised the need for further exports, I want to concentrate on the aspect of this Budget which affects the development districts, including Northern Ireland.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham said, it is true that a large part of our export industry is carried on by a few large firms, but there are also many small firms which export, and it is these firms which should be encouraged to increase their output. For instance, the biscuit industry exports about £1 million worth of biscuits every year, which represents a lot of biscuits. Many small industries such as that could increase their output. It should be possible for a person to say, "I am not running a satisfactory firm unless I am exporting, unless I have a product that is in any way required or demanded overseas, and if it is not required I ought to be able to find out why".
  We must have a new look at our whole approach to exports, not just in respect of the big firms, but in respect of the small man who, despite the amount of work which the Board of Trade has done in helping and giving advice, still does not find it easy, or sometimes even possible, to take the

  1027
  capital risk involved. I wish that there were time to develop this further, because this is surely the essence of what we are aiming at in a Budget of expansion without inflation. We must sell more, and sell it over a wider base. This is very important for everybody, for the development districts as well as the areas already fully employed and over-employed.
  The Chancellor said that he required to have 4 per cent. growth in order to have a satisfactory return and an incomes policy of about 1 per cent. to ½ per cent. below that. In Northern Ireland, which is the only part of the United Kingdom that I have time to concentrate on tonight, the growth has been well in the forefront of the general growth throughout the United Kingdom. I want to point out quite clearly that it depends on the situation in the area whether the growth in the area is satisfactory to the needs of that area.
  The needs of Northern Ireland have by no means been met up to date. We have had tremendous growth in the industries of growth, but we have had tremendous shrinkage in the traditional industries which are being affected all over the United Kingdom. That is part of the reason why we are so concerned and why the Chancellor has brought in these new measures which will give a great deal of help.
  In Northern Ireland, the shipbuilding industry is shrinking considerably. We also have a serious situation in the aircraft industry, and everyone knows what a problem that is today. In the textile industry there has not only been a large run-down, but much greater mechanisation and modernisation leading to the employment of fewer people and greater used of modern machinery. Even in agriculture today there is far greater mechanisation and employment of fewer people.
  Seen against the background of the difficulties in the other development districts, Northern Ireland has its specific problem which is still outstanding, despite what has been done in the Budget to help the development districts generally.
  Other development districts have their problems, but Northern Ireland has a special one, and that is the sea which makes it necessary for Northern Ireland
  1028
  to import every piece of raw material in order to manufacture. We have a very large number of shrinking industries, despite our efforts. We have more people employed today than ever before, but we have more people than ever before needing employment because of the vast increase in population. This is one of the human factors with which we must be concerned. Therefore, we need 6,000 new jobs for youngsters every year in addition to work for the men and women coming out of the shrinking industries. I ask the Chancellor what ideas he has for helping to solve a specific problem like this.
  There has been some help for Scotland and for the North-East. Money has been advanced and loans given for various developments, but there has been no specific mention in the Budget of any special help for Northern Ireland. I am aware that the new free depreciation will cover the whole of Northern Ireland and not be confined in one area. But Northern Ireland is a small area and it is almost impossible to differentiate where the needs are. That means that we need a further differential to add an inducement to manufacturers and developers to come across that strip of water.
  Had Britain joined the Common Market, I believe that we should not be facing this problem so acutely at present, because there were a number of American firms which were awaiting the opportunity to set up in an English-speaking part of the Common Market so that they could use the skill and the common language. Northern Ireland had not only hopes but very firm promises of firms to go there provided that the Common Market became a fact. In view of what has happened, we must think in other terms.
  Northern Ireland is a most forward-looking part of the United Kingdom. We hear far too often about the problems and not about the forward-looking effort. Today, the industrialist in Northern Ireland becomes very excited about the possibilities of the way of life which be and his family can enjoy, but there is much more to be done to encourage industrialists to go to Northern Ireland.
  I must ask the Chancellor to accept that I had many points which I wanted to put to him, had I had the time. Will he please think in terms of possibly a tax

  1029
  incentive or of some other valuable long-term incentive which could be applied short-term to get us over the hump of this problem and to enable us to move into the position of producing more jobs than there are people needing jobs rather than the other way round? Will he please help us to catch up with the demand?
  The Chancellor and the President of the Board of Trade know very well that great efforts have been made to attract new industry. Great efforts are being made at diversification, but they are not enough. This is the first time that the Budget has contained an inducement to people to go to development districts such as Northern Ireland and to stay there. It is not only a question of firms which need to expand going to these areas, but of maintaining their position in these areas. Occasionally, we have found in Northern Ireland that it is the outlying parts of an industry which suffer first when the industry suffers.
  I welcome the Chancellor's proposals by which industrialists will have special treatment as long as they remain in the area. They can take some years to write off their allowances as they wish, but this will not solve the problem, nor will it necessarily solve it in all other industrial areas.
  Mr. William Baxter: Will the hon. Lady give us the names of the firms which were ready to go to Northern Ireland provided that Britain joined the Common Market?
  Mrs. McLaughlin: If the hon. Member will talk to me later I will let him know. I have only three minutes left, and I hope that he will forgive me if I continue with my speech.
  I emphasise that in Northern Ireland the Government have taken every measure possible within the terms of their own authority. It has been announced that we are to have our own N.E.D.C. and that there is to be further development of apprentice training and of retraining. This is happening in this country, but we have been at it for a long time and are well ahead with it. Hon. Members must realise that this is very important. It is no use my asking the Chancellor to do things unless I remind him of what we are already doing. We are playing our part,
  1030
  and we are asking Her Majesty's Government to play their part.
  What is being done is good, but it is not sufficient for us to sit back and to say that what is being done will suffice, because it will not. We require a further inducement and differential. We require bold measures. The Chancellor's outlook in the Budget has been bold. He has helped, and he is to be congratulated, but once we have decided to go down a road we should go the whole way. I ask the Chancellor to see whether there is any way in which he can go further and can provide specific inducements which will make Northern Ireland not only a forward-looking place, but also the forward-living place which we want it to be.
  8.59 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I have heard a great many interesting speeches today, perhaps particularly that of my hon. Friend the new Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride). His sincerity, his thoughtful simplicity and his obvious knowledge of the needs of the constituency for which he has been chosen I feel sure commended him to the whole Committee.
  I should like also to say a word about one other speaker, the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). I found his speech most amusing, particularly the results of his 61 per cent. successes—of course, in a field other than that of finance—and also his comments on the Plowden idea of looking ahead five years. Considering that he himself explained that his own forecasts had held good for six months and no longer, I thought that it showed a distinctly hopeful spirit to expect other people to place any reliance on forecasts for five years ahead.
  The plain fact of the matter is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was hopelessly wrong in his last Budget. His forecasts were wrong, except for a short period. In those circumstances it was altogether too much to expect that the remedies he proposed on his mistaken view of the coming year were likely to be the right ones. It would indeed have been a singular coincidence if they had been.
  It is not altogether surprising that we had last year an Economic Survey which began with a forecast of the

  1031
  coming Budget. This year we have no more than an Economic Report which in its own wards confines itself to a factual statement of the position. The words are these:
  "a factual analysis of economic developments during 1962."
  It is rather funny, but this kind of humour can have the most lamentable results. There is no doubt that the results of the conclusions at which the right hon. and learned Gentleman arrived in the Economic Survey for 1962 have in fact proved contrary to what he expected and singularly unfortunate for a large number of people. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman said was this; this is the summing up:
  "This is the background against which we shall be working in 1962. Provided the pressure of home demand is kept in check"—
  is that what his successor is doing in this Budget?—
  "and the incomes policy widely applied"—
  that was another and stricter incomes policy—
  "the country will be able to take advantage of the favourable opportunities for exports in 1962."
  Whether there have been such opportunities or not, the country has not taken advantage of them.
  "These opportunities may not remain, and it is essential to make the most of them. If this is done, production could expand without a damaging increase in the pressure of demand upon resources and without renewed risk to the balance of payments."
  That is a very different picture from the one which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has put before us in relation to this Budget.
  I think that the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral happened to enter the Chamber just after I said how good his jokes were about his 61 per cent. success. I respectfully say to him that I think that in this case he has been wrong—wrong, no doubt, in quite respectable company, but hopelessly wrong. It is rather foolish—I hope I am being respectful—to try to persuade the country or this Committee that he was completely right, that the forecasts were right, that the remedies were right, and that things have so changed that the present remedies are equally right. That is not remotely like the real position.
  I turn from that to the Budget as a
  1032
  whole. It has been welcomed in some quarters as a very astute approach to an incomes policy. I shall not embark on a discussion of that, except to say that I do not believe that an incomes policy will ever succeed in this country until someone realises that the present definition of "income", largely a tax definition, is a very artificial one and that also to be taken into account are capital advantages, both so far as taxation goes and as regards their results in the social world in which we live.
  It does not matter whether a man is over-spending—if he is over-spending—on the results of hard-earned income, which he may have deserved, or whether he is doing it on the results of some capital appreciation which, by any ordinary ethical standard, he certainly does not deserve. When we come to matters of taxation and of an incomes policy, I should have thought that it was a very good thing to get rid of that obsolete, and disappearing, and somewhat unjust distinction. There is a line to be drawn, but it is certainly not the line we draw nowadays in practice.
  I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) pointed out so very clearly, that this Budget must be taken in conjunction with the fact that the increase of Government expenditure will put about double this amount of money into circulation and that, so far as the pump is being primed, it is being primed more by increased Government expenditure, little though hon. Members may like it, than by anything in the Budget.
  I should like, if I may, to divide the Budget into the two halves that appear in Table XI in page 20 of the Financial Statement, the first being headed Income Tax, and the other, Income Tax and Profits Tax. Income Tax starts with the abolition of Schedule A. I have noticed one rather amusing comment from several corespondents in newspapers, including a very short and witty letter from a lady which appeared in The Times this morning; that it is all very well to be presented with relief under Schedule A if it is to be taken away from one by an increase in rates.
  A great deal of odd stuff is talked about rates, and I shall not add to it now. I would simply say that this seems to emphasise the wisdom of the plan

  1033
  that my party has had for a long time. The urgent necessity is an examination of the relationship between central and local government expenditure. That is just the sort of case that illustrates this very clearly.
  I turn from that to the other increases in allowances, for this is what they all are. The most substantial of them is an increase of the single allowance and of the married allowance, and an alteration of the reduced rates of tax. That increase alone in this coming year accounts for slightly more than half the total cost to the Revenue of the Budget concessions. It is a very large amount, and I am very glad that it is being done, but the reason for its being done is perfectly obvious.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) last year made this the central point of his comments on the Budget, and we carried it further by way of Amendments in Committee on the Finance Bill. I shall not go through all my hon. Friend said then, but would remind the Committee of one or two very simple conclusions which, as far as I know, have never been disputed. One was that as regards a salary of £800, £53 was taken in tax and National Insurance contributions in 1955, and the amount when my hon. Friend was speaking was £72 for those two items. This is another instance of what happens under Tory Governments; they invariably, towards the end of a Parliament, claim great credit for putting right that which they have done wrong in the earlier years.
  To carry it a little further, my hon. Friend, having pointed out that the P.A.Y.E. earner had been milked, added:
  "Seven years ago he used to pay £1 in every £4 of the total taxation. Today, he is paying £1 in every £3."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April, 1962; Vol. 657, c. 1167.]
  I am very glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman has taken this lesson to heart and that he is now, at long last, carrying out a little of what my hon. Friend suggested.
  But it is not only in respect of that particular allowance. I think that I am right in saying that every one of these increases has been pressed for by the Opposition, not casually but systematically year after year, and with all the sound arguments which remain at the command of my hon. Friend the Member
  1034
  far Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), among others. One cannot get very enthusiastic about this part of the Budget. One gets one's clothes stolen while bathing, but this is not a very distinguished lot to have pinched. We were perfectly right to have put these proposals forward, but I do not think that a Government can get on solely on them.
  I leave that to come to what is in many ways a more important subject, under the heading Income Tax and Profits Tax, relating to allowances for plant and machinery. I say that it is more important not because I would reduce in any way the importance and value of the family concessions but because those were so obvious that they had to be made. I cannot see any right hon. Gentleman who was a Chancellor shortly before an election failing to do that kind of thing.
  As for the investment allowances, I notice that on the estimated figures for the coming year the personal allowances amount to £221 million out of a total of £260 million, while the whole of the rest amount to £39½ million, of which no less than £27 million are accounted for by the changes in Stamp Duty. The point is that these concessions on investment allowances will be very small beer at present when this is an urgent problem.
  Although hon. Members opposite may not realise it, there are people throughout the country who are without a job. I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) talking about his own retraining in the 1930s with that transparently sincere eloquence which always characterises what he has to say. I remember those days, and I remember going to some of the places where that kind of suffering was experienced. I have never forgotten it and I never shall forget it. There are people in the country who still remember that sort of thing. Every day that measures fail to be taken adds a considerable total to the sum of human misery in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and indeed all over the country. I therefore find these delayed action provisions somewhat unsatisfactory on that account.
  I should like to comment, first, on the increase in investment allowances for expenditure on scientific research. The maximum in a full year will be £1 million. We should take with this the acceleration of depreciation allowances for scientific

  1035
  research, though the latter concession is in effect merely an interest-free loan. The net result is a very small concession indeed to scientific research. I turn to the N.E.D.C. Report, paragraph 174:
  "Though research and development do not invariably show a return, the returns when achieved usually more than cover the cost of the failures as well as the successes. Sometimes they are very great. Information is accumulating which suggests some correlation between research and development effort and growth of productivity."
  And in paragraph 181:
  "… inadequate scientific and technical awareness by management is the most usual reason for reluctance to introduce technical changes"—
  and so on.
  It is perfectly clear that the N.E.D.C., quite rightly, in my opinion, would note the lack of scientific research and the lack of the application and use of it as considerable factors in this country's failure to produce and to export on the scale needed today. I do not believe that lack of productivity and lack of exports depend on any slackening of individual effort. In my view, they depend very largely on the somewhat inferior quality of much of the management in Britain. The British industrialist has shown himself to be uncommonly slow to take up the advances of science and apply them to the purposes for which he could usefully and with benefit to the country apply them.
  This is a serious matter. If all the Government can offer is a tax concession amounting to £1 million in a full year and, as it were, a loan of, at the most, £4 million in any other year, and if the results in this coming year are to be classed as only negligible, I wish that the Chancellor would think again and think of something a bit more useful and immediate. Millions have been granted and lent to industrial firms. We have had another case just lately. I wish that somebody could give them, instead of millions, a little more intelligence and awareness of the advances of modern science and the possibilities of it.
  In France nowadays—I do not turn to France with unmixed blessing in every respect by any means—one finds that the use being made of science and its place in French planning are both far more important and far more successful than anything in this country. We have a
  1036
  Minister for Science. He is also in some vague way the Minister for the North-East Coast and Minister for Sport. He holds, I believe, some position in the Conservative Party. His multifarious activities, concealed, no doubt, under different hats, must limit a little his devotion to scientific advance.
  The position is just not good enough. The result is showing itself in the competition between industrial nations nowadays, when those which have the best forms and schemes of higher education, for the advancement of science and for the application of the results are winning the race.
  Now, a few words about the allowance of free depreciation in development districts. Again, the result this coming year is negligible. The most that can be reached finally is £45 million. This is, no doubt, a substantial sum, but one remembers that the concessions on Stamp Duty amount to £40 million in a full year, which is much the same figure.
  The free depreciation in development districts may be a much more important matter. This is a tax concession of considerable value, following the lines indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) last year. The Government have not put forward a new idea in this Budget except by taking off the Stamp Duty, and even that their own side has been pressing for years. Here we have it at last—free depreciation in development districts.
  My difficulty concerns the idea of development districts. I very much agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton said on this point. The difficulty arises on the rather narrow point of what is the exact boundary of a development district and what one does about changes in it from time to time. However, at the root of the matter there is a much wider difficulty. If the Government make considerable tax concessions and try to attract people to a limited area, they are trying to cure a nation-wide trouble by dealing with the form in which the problem arises locally.
  After all, this is a national matter. The problem of unemployment may be very bad in one place, less bad in another and comparatively small in an area such as London and the South-East. But it is utterly impossible to try to get at the root of it simply by dealing specially with

  1037
  a number of districts. I entirely agree that that must be done. All that I say is that it is certainly not sufficient, and perhaps the incidence of this tax concession will show that very clearly.
  In addition to the difficulties at the margin of the area and at the point when the area is changed—taken out of one list and put on the stop list or taken off the stop list with the result that those who came in later are placed in a different position from those who came in previously—there is the question of unemployment itself spreading over the country. I do not apologise for taking a spot of trouble in my constituency as an instance.
  I was rather surprised and shocked when looking at the figures of what I think is not permanent but short-time unemployment on page 119 of the last Ministry of Labour Gazette. I found that there were three industries in the country where the number of men and women who had been put off for the whole week or who were working only for part of the week exceeded 10 per cent. of the total number of people in the industry. Those three industries in order of badness were bedding, furniture and boots and shoes. They are not perhaps the three which would occur to one at first. The figures in this respect are worse than those in textiles or, to take another instance with which I have some local acquaintance, iron and steel, or in engineering.
  Perhaps the worst unemployment for some time past has been in Scotland. It spread south and, no doubt, from festering parts of Lancashire. Gradually, it has come down to what everyone usually regards as a prosperous part of the country, down into the Midlands. I can see the effect of this in my constituency. I take this as an instance. What it shows most clearly is that if we want to deal with unemployment we must by all means have special arrangements for the worst hit areas but must also regard it not even as a regional problem but as a problem which must be dealt with nationally.
  The only way in which one can really get it right, other than temporary patching of the kind which we have been driven to, is to have a national plan for industry. One must not hesitate, where the necessity arises, to do by public enter-
  1038
  prise what private enterprise appears unable to do. There can be no question of sacrificing human beings and their work to the interests of some remarkable ideology which I do not share.
  It is the plainest of common sense that if we want to deal with unemployment, we must not let ourselves, on purely human grounds—on social grounds, if one likes—be stopped by considerations of that sort. I was shocked to hear the reluctance of some hon. Members opposite to accept what, I should have thought, was a self-evident proposition.
  Sir Cyril Osborne: The hon. and learned Member said that the Government would not accept a plan to plan the economy and to plan for full employment. Will he tell the Committee how he would plan exports, upon which 5 million jobs depend, when he does not have the power to compel the foreigner to buy British goods?
  Mr. Mitchison: To reply as shortly as possible, the first thing I would do would be to find out what the foreigner wanted and to produce it. [Interruption.] I am not sure that there are proper arrangements for that at present, and I speak with some knowledge of the industry to which I have just referred. I am not convinced that the intelligence, as it were, that is given to our businessmen is sufficient.
  The second thing I would do would be to see that we sell it. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said today. We are uncommonly slow to take advantage of foreign conditions, to speak to the foreigner in his own language—to be, in short, good salesmen. If small firms cannot do it, there should be a collective arrangement.
  Lastly—and this is surely the substantial point—we have to produce what is required as cheaply and as well as possible. If our attitude to scientific advances is the sort of attitude to which I have referred, the man who is out of a job is being sacrificed to the backwardness, the innate conservatism—the phrase comes from an hon. Member opposite—of many British businessmen. That ought not to happen. It is not right.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Mitchison: I am sorry, I had better go on. I have only two minutes left.
  I sum up in this way what I have to say. I regard this as a rather dull Budget. Most of its comes from our own suggestions. [Interruption.] Most of it comes from our own suggestions, and we have got tired of making them to a Government which, until just before an election, was unwilling to adopt them. One can get bored with even the best ideas when one goes on trying to put them over to a stupid and reluctant Government.
  I regard it, however, as part one of an electioneering Budget. The remarkable thing about it is that it contains hardly a single measure dealing with indirect taxation. It is all about direct taxation. The Chancellor keeps in his hands the powerful instrument of the regulator. What I expect him to do—we shall see if he does it— is to begin to use the regulator a little nearer the election, unless he thinks that the Budget has completely done the trick. I share the view which was expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford about that. I think that in this Budget the Chancellor may get the general expansion that he wants but that he is unlikely to get the correlated expansion of 5 per cent. in exports. For those reasons, I look at the Budget with a somewhat qualified enthusiasm.
  9.30 p.m.
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Edward du Cann): Today's debate has been remarkable in that we have not only had the pleasure of listening to the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride), who spoke with authority about his adopted constituency and with all the ability that we expect from a Scot, but we have also had two memorable "maiden speeches"—from my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). I have always been concerned lest, unwittingly, I gave offence to my right hon. and learned Friend in July last year, because I then married one of his most beautiful and charming constituents and thereby cost him a vote. I only hope that I gained one in its
  1040
  stead and that he does not hold this offence against me.
  We have been discussing principally unemployment. To some extent we have also discussed the past, but I propose, in winding up the debate for today, to talk about the present and, more particularly, about the future. I believe that that is what interests the country. Let me make it clear at once that it is the Government's policy to attack, to contain, and, I do not doubt, to conquer unemployment where it exists. There is no worse human problem, and there is no more urgent task, as the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. I. Davies) and the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Ainsley) pointed out.
  The Budget has as its main theme expansion without inflation, expansion that can be sustained. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), whose speech I regret I unavoidably missed, suggested that perhaps we were not being ambitious enough. I hope that he at least gives us credit for being on the right lines. I think that was part of the point of his speech.
  The present problems of our economy are the product of two factors. The chief is the deficiency of total demand in which the most important element has been the lack of buoyancy in export markets. Our overwhelming interest is that world trade should continue to expand. While we shall do our best to assist in this process, exerting our influence through the international institutions to which we belong—the G.A.T.T. and E.F.T.A.—and joining in the Kennedy Round, and so on, there can be no guarantee, of course, of a rising trend in 1963 or after.
  Something has been said about an improvement in the world payments systems. I am delighted that the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) should be a convert to the ideas expressed by my right hon. Friend in Washington last September—a late convert, perhaps, but none the less welcome.
  The prospect for world trade as a whole, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, is, perhaps, that it will increase at a slower pace in 1963 than in recent years. We must, therefore, resolve that, whatever the level of world trade, Britain must achieve, if possible, a greater share for her exports of goods and services.

  1041
  This was a point which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke). It is essential to see that exports rise.
  The question has been asked whether or not we are sufficiently export-minded. That was asked by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin). I certainly think that it is true to say that sometimes we are not. I would repudiate the strictures by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) about the management of British industry in general. One of our purposes is to facilitate the realisation of the export potential of our country by concentrating on the sub-themes of the Budget—modernisation, efficiency and competitiveness.
  The breakdown for the time being of our negotiations to enter the European Economic Community, referred to by the hon. Member for Gloucester, re-emphasises the need for success in these fields. To use a modern phrase, perhaps the need in the 1960s is for Britain to "get with it".
  I give one example of modernisation to show what I mean. The choice for our railways lies between an out-of-date, wasteful system and a modern, competitive profit-earning streamlined complex—in simple terms, between a railway as designed by the celebrated cartoonist Roland Emmett and the railways as envisaged by Dr. Beeching. As one whose constituency is affected as much as anybody else's by the reorganisation, I, like so many of my hon. Friends who believe in modernisation, come down on the side of Dr. Beeching. So, I believe, will the country.
  The Budget, together with the measures already taken by the Government, is designed to improve demand at home and facilitate change, especially to make it easier for our fellow citizens. The stimulus to the economy which the Budget gives will have its effect upon areas where unemployment is above the national average. For these, as the Committee knows, there is the special help about which we have been asked questions during the debate and to which I will refer later. The substantial structural change mentioned by the hon.
  1042
  Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), which our country faces is, I believe, to be welcomed.
  Indeed, if I may, so to speak, pluck from the air a phrase broadcast by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) the other evening, I might say, "Away with the abacus and in with the computer. Here is Britain's opportunity". To that extent, I agree with the hon. Member. We have to make it easier, as the hon. Member for Gower said, for the citizen to fit into the pattern of modernisation. This is the object of the training schemes and the proper provision for redundancy payments, which have been explained by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.
  In particular, we need to change the image of the development districts. We must clear them up through the derelict sites grants, improve communications both to and from these areas and within them, and move Government work and Departments, where appropriate, to them. All this is Government policy and has been expanded during the course of the Budget.
  Mr. Jay: If the hon. Gentleman wants to improve communications with the development districts, why does he propose to close the railway to Stranraer, which is the route to Northern Ireland?
  Mr. du Cann: The Committee knows and, with his intelligence, I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have known—I have always respected him for his intelligence—that although Dr. Beeching has produced his plan the Government have yet to come to a decision on it.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: But the hon. Gentleman says that he supports it.
  Mr. du Cann: Not only must we have the imagination and the will for reconstruction—with the improvement of facilities and amenities, especially in development districts—but we must have the capacity as well. I want to say a word about our construction industries in particular in this context. The Government are making estimates of the capacity of the building and civil engineering industry. Many of the measures announced in recent weeks and in this

  1043
  debate, on which hon. Members on both sides have pressed us, will place a very heavy demand on the resources of this industry.
  There is a rapidly growing volume of public service investment in roads, hospitals, schools, higher education and new towns—all of which will make substantial demands. We have to develop methods of high productivity to meet these and the requirements of the private sector for factories and other construction work, which is also important, and the need for slum clearance and housing projects, both public and private.
  Therefore, we have to look for substantial improvements in techniques with improved productivity. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works, who is now responsible for Government building and is in a good position to give a lead, is paying special and urgent attention to the practical problems involved. He has appointed a Director General of Research and Development.
  Mr. Baxter: Have you any idea of the capacity of the building industry?
  Mr. du Cann: I am not sure whether that question was addressed to you, Sir Robert, or to me. But if I were asked if I had any idea of the capacity of this industry I would point out that this is precisely what I am talking about. Because of the danger of strain on the industry, we must make sure that it has the most modern techniques so that it can meet the volume of work demanded of it.
  As I said, my right hon. Friend has appointed a Director General of Research and Development, who will foster modern methods of building so as to help the industry increase its capacity and thus undertake these expanding programmes and complete them quickly. I hope that that point has the attention and favour of the hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter).
  A number of statements have already been made on this subject. The Director General will no doubt co-ordinate research over the whole field and see that its results are disseminated to all concerned. In general, it is the. Government's objective to ensure that the industry can meet commitments made both
  1044
  regionally and nationally by public investment programmes.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham asked, in particular, about aid and surplus capacity, if I may "pull his leg" for a moment—[An HON. MEMBER: "Be careful."] I do not see why I should be careful; he and I are very old friends. If I cannot "pull his leg" I cannot "pull the leg" of anyone in this Committee. He made a remark, which I thought a superb contribution from one who has had such a record of distinguished service to the motor-car industry, that it was about time motorcars had engines either at the front or the back.
  On aid and surplus capacity, during his Budget speech my right hon. Friend gave details of the progress we have made up to date. As he said, we are considering a number of other projects. Of the projects he specifically mentioned, I am happy to tell the Committee that an agreement with India is being signed tomorrow. On another project, Her Majesty's Government have informed the Chilean Government that they are willing to provide a loan of £1·5 million to be spent on the products of British industries where there is surplus capacity. Therefore, it is fair to claim, we have been most active in pursuing projects in fulfilment of my right hon. Friend's undertaking.
  The Committee will understand that I cannot give the details, in answer to questions asked by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, of the proposed Chilean loan at this stage. We have indicated that we should be pleased to examine in particular specific proposals for ship purchases. I hope that that will have the support of the Committee.
  As the Committee knows, aid from the United Kingdom tied to our surplus capacity industries is in addition to our normal aid commitments. This particular project of aid to Chile should not be misinterpreted as indicating a new development in policy of aid to South America. However, I should perhaps point out that our existing aid programmes are already near the limit of what the United Kingdom can afford. The arrangement for providing £10 million of additional aid from surplus capacity has to be viewed in the context that our regular aid expenditure is running at the level of about

  1045
  £160 million and that the tendency is for it to increase still further. This programme places a heavy burden on our balance of payments.
  Aid expenditure forms a substantial part of our total overseas expenditure, which amounts to an annual figure of £550 million, including defence expenditure. The proposed loan to Chile takes the total of offers and acceptances under what I might perhaps call the surplus capacity extra aid, originally proposed at the level of £10 million, up to £11 million, and there are a number of other projects still in the pipeline.
  Quite apart from these, however, we are looking very carefully indeed at all proposals to incur further aid commitments—and there is no lack of them—to see to what extent they can be matched with surplus industrial capacity in this country. If we can foresee orders which will benefit areas at present suffering from unemployment above the average, we may be able to take a somewhat less stringent view of such proposals than we should otherwise feel bound to do in the light of what I have just said about the burden of our aid programme generally.
  By no means the major part of our aid programme is susceptible to this sort of treatment, but, by using our surplus resources in this way to the maximum possible extent, we hope that it may be possible for us to maintain and even increase our programme with benefit to those industries which are now facing difficulty and without placing an unnecessarily heavy strain on the balance of payments.
  Mr. Dalyell: Can the hon. Gentleman give details of a loan to East Africa, referring to sales of locomotives?
  Mr. du Cann: Not specifically at the moment, but, if the hon. Member will put down a Question to my right hon. Friend or myself we will do our best to answer it.
  I now say a word or two on the subject of free depreciation, about which there has been much discussion in the debate. This has been welcomed by the hon. Member for Hamilton, the hon. Member for Gower and my hon. Friends the Members for Twickenham, Belfast, West and Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary). It was described as bold by my right hon. and learned Friend the Mem-
  1046
  ber for Wirral, and the hon. Member for Gloucester, who has very great accountancy and technical experience—if he will allow me to describe him professionally as a technician—as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West said that they were certain that this would have a very great effect.
  I think that that is true. I could not understand why the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering kept saying to us during his speech by way of complaint that no cost was shown for this development this year. That, surely, is inevitable in the way accountancy works and company balance sheets and profit and loss accounts are prepared. I think that the real measure of the potential here is to look at the figures which my right hon. Friend gave in his speech for the cost in future years. To complain that it is no good because it is costing nothing this year, is, I think, with respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, nonsense.
  Mr. Mitchison: The reason was that I did not think it sufficient. This is an urgent problem, and more needs to be done than the things which are coming at the earliest twelve months or more ahead.
  Mr. du Cann: Again with respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I wish that I could agree with him, because I like to agree with him when I can, but on what he has said I cannot, because I think that he is wrong.
  It is a most important measure, this matter of free depreciation allowances. Even the New Statesman said that this was not too bad—which, judged by the English standards which some of us in this Committee profess, modest standards, I regard as high praise. Not only do we now have for the whole of the United Kingdom standard depreciation allowances which are probably more generous than those in any other country in Europe, but, in addition, we have special help for the development districts, the cost and influence of which can be measured perhaps by the fact that one other smaller European country, Sweden, which introduced such a scheme a few years ago—and hon. Gentlemen opposite, I think, are quite accustomed and happy to quote Sweden—found it too expensive to continue. There, of course, it is applied to the whole country. Here,

  1047
  it applies, rightly, in my judgment, to the areas which need help most.
  The industrialist going to any of the development districts, including Falmouth, in the West—and why the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East thinks that none of us on this side of the Committee knows anything about the West Country I cannot imagine—or anywhere in Northern Ireland, I would say particularly with reference to what my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West said, can write off 100 per cent. of initial costs in the first year plus 30 per cent. investment allowance on plant and 15 per cent. on buildings plus, if the project will create jobs—for that is what it comes down to—cash grants, as announced by the President of the Board of Trade, amounting to 25 per cent. of the cost of buildings and 10 per cent. on plant.
  What I cannot understand, considering all of this, is why there are some people who say that my right hon. Friend's Budget is unimaginative.
  Mr. Bence: Would the British Transport Commission be permitted to enjoy the benefits of this depreciation in development districts?
  Mr. du Cann: I think that it certainly would. The first essential, surely—if the hon. Gentleman had been listening to what I said earlier he would have heard—is to put it in a position where it can earn a profit.
  Mr. Mitchison: Do I understand that this free depreciation allowance depends in any way on the treatment of depreciation in companies' accounts? That was the suggestion which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) last year.
  Mr. du Cann: If I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's question aright, the answer is, "No."
  Our aim is to attract new firms into development districts by a policy of grants and to stimulate new investment. Therefore, the free depreciation allowance is a formidable incentive, so I am quite sure that it would be the desire of the Committee to pass this particular provision, and, indeed, the whole of the Budget, into law at the earliest opportunity.
  1048
  Many hon. Members have commented, even during today, that we are discriminating quite heavily in favour of the development districts. That is completely true. I ask the Committee whether this is wrong. I believe it to be a very good principle that we should bring aid to those who need it most. The economy as a whole cannot realise its full potential expansion until regional disparities are reduced. The advantage Parliament is giving, if it so decides, to these areas must not be dissipated by extending their definition unjustifiably. I make that point deliberately in reply to what has been said about the admittedly very difficult problem of the areas.
  A further point which I should like to make in answer to questions is that a company earning profits in another part of the United Kingdom would have every reason to set up a branch or new capacity in a development district, since the allowance could be set off against its existing profits while the new business got on tits feet, and I say nothing of the incentive to new businesses to start life there.
  I have been asked what would happen when a district was descheduled. I was asked this question particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Marshall). Circumstances may arise when unemployment in the area has fallen so much that this highly favourable treatment is no longer justified fat subsequent investment in new plant and machinery. I ask the Committee whether this is something to regret. I think not. What a transformation, what a happy achievement, that would be! The Committee may think that development districts are rightly named.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East asked what would happen when unemployment in an area designated a development district fell below a certain level. He wondered whether firms which had already started putting in new plant and machinery—I think that this was his specific question—would find themselves unable to get the new depreciation allowance because a district had ceased to be a development district. As he suggested, there would be a number of complications of that sort, and we hope to make adequate provision for them in the Finance Bill. However, I can say at once that it is our intention to look after

  1049
  the sort of cases which the hon. Member has in mind.
  Perhaps I can now turn to the other questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin. To answer him—[HON. MEMBERS: "Do not 'pull his leg'."] I am not "pulling his leg" I propose to give him excellent information. The answer to his first question is that capital expenditure on new mine workings in development districts will certainly rank for free depreciation. His second question related to the rights of the mineral operator. The depletion allowance for capital expenditure on mineral bearing land and mineral bearing rights will certainly go to the operator. Having satisfied my hon. Friend twice, I now have to disappoint him. His point about ships cannot be met, for reasons which I will explain more fully in correspondence.
  Mr. Callaghan: Say that again.
  Mr. du Cann: I will not say it again. The hon. Member can read it tomorrow in HANSARD.
  The subject of Wiggins Teape was mentioned by the hon. Member for Hamilton and by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering. It was suggested by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East in his speech the other day, and again in his broadcast, that the Government should insist on sharing in the equity of the company. I appreciate that some hon. Members opposite have feelings about this. No doubt they have in mind the company's potential equity growth. What they absolutely fail to understand, to appreciate and fully to evaluate in the interests of the taxpayer, who is putting up the money, is that shares can not only rise in value and appreciate, but can also fall.
  As to the Government taking an equity interest in this or any other company, I should like to say—and I am sure that I will have the support of my hon. Friends in this—that we would be flatly opposed to any backdoor nationalisation of that sort. Indeed. I go further and say that it is the responsibility of the Government, in making an investment sure, rather than that they should have a gamble, in the words of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East—[Interruption.] If hon. Members wish to interrupt, there is a valid way of doing so.
  1050
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Give Way."] I was not asked to give way.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East suggested that we should have a gamble in the matter of the Government going in as a partner. But the Government's first regard must be security of interest and capital, and one gets this through a loan with a fixed rate of interest and not through an equity investment.
  Mr. T. Fraser: As the hon. Gentleman has mentioned Wiggins Teape, perhaps I might refer him to the question which I asked. Three of these pulp and paper mill companies having dropped out of the negotiations, leaving only Wiggins Teape, what would have happened if this firm, too, had dropped out?
  Mr. du Cann: When I began my speech I said that I was not going to talk about the past, but about the present and the future. I might have added that I was not going to talk about hypothetical situations. We are talking about the facts.
  Mr. George Lawson: What is the rate of interest to be charged for this project?
  Mr. du Cann: This will be in the Bill and I think that the hon. Gentleman should look at that. He will get a better comparison with the equity position at that time. Why hon. Gentlemen opposite are bothering themselves about whether we should have an equity or a fixed interest investment in this company I cannot think. What matters is that we have done the trick, and we have got the company there. That is what matters more than anything else.
  We accept the objective of growth not simply because it is fashionable to talk about growth, but for concrete reasons which are extremely important. The first is social. We can only improve the standard of life for our people and do more for them in various ways if we get growth. We can only further reduce the incidence of taxation on our people if we get growth. Right hon. and hon. Members may think that the real challenge in these days is the difference in the standard of living between ourselves in the industrialised countries and those for

  1051
  whom we in Britain have a particular responsibility in the under-privileged countries of Africa, Asia, and other countries of the world. We can only do more for those people if we get growth.
  The right hon. Member for Huyton said yesterday that Britain is a second-class Power. We on this side of the Committee do not believe that. I prefer what was said by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), who said that he was proud of our country and wanted it to play a full part in the world. I believe that we have every right to be proud of what we have achieved in the past. We have every right to look forward to the future with confidence. I believe that our influence for good in the world is very much needed in these days. We can only influence the world if we get growth, if we are prosperous at home.
  Mr. J. T. Price: Before the hon. Gentleman gets away with that smear, will he give way, according to our usual practice? We do not believe that Britain is a second-class country and neither does Mr. Harold Wilson—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order. Order."] I mean my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson). It is germane to the issue which is being debated that when the hon. Gentleman's right hon. and hon. Friends were in opposition they did not hesitate to go to America and decry this country in every possible way.
  Mr. du Cann: I think that I shall leave the hon. Gentleman to debate that matter with his right hon. and hon. Friends.
  The Budget is a lead to the nation. It will always respond with determination and vigour to leadership. If it is not a lead, let us look forward to seeing the Opposition vote against it tomorrow. I repeat that it is our objective to contain and conquer unemployment. We are confident of full success, and we shall be satisfied with nothing less.
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again—[Mr. MacArthur]—put and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress: to sit again Tomorrow.

  LAND, DERBY (SALE)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacArthur.]
  10.0 p.m.
  Mr. Niall MacDermot: I wish to raise the question of the sale of land adjoining St. Mary's Maternity Home at Derby which involves a curious decision taken by the Minister of Health. The problem arose in this way.
  Derby, like many towns in this country, suffers seriously from traffic congestion. Like many other towns it has tried to help solve that problem by the construction of a modern, inner ring road with a dual carriageway. Two sections of this road have already been built and another is under construction. One section which is most urgently needed is known as the Bridge Gate section between Kings Street and St. Mary's Bridge in Derby.
  In order to get the necessary widening of this section of the road under the plans submitted to the Minister of Transport it will be necessary to acquire the site of St. Alkmund's Parish Church. The attitude of the Church authorities has been most co-operative over this. They have said that they were prepared to dispose of the site to the corporation, provided that they could get a suitable alternative site for a parish church within the parish. If they could not get a suitable site, they would vigorously oppose the acquisition, and it is quite clear that there would be very widespread opposition throughout the parish, holding up the inner ring road.
  It came to the notice of the Church authorities and of Derby Corporation that the Minister of Health was proposing to dispose of some land which adjoins this maternity home and which was surplus to his requirements. The site is one which the Church authorities regard as being wholly suitable for their purposes and indeed quite ideal. It is in the centre of the parish and not only is it an ideal site from every point of view but they and the Corporation are satisfied that it is the only available land suitable for this purpose. It also has some historical associations in that the land was formerly part of the garden of the provost's house and was sold by the former provost to the Ministry with a view to an extension of

  1053
  the maternity home which was then proposed, but the proposal subsequently fell through. In these circumstances, the Corporation requested the Minister, who had already advertised the site for sale at public auction, to withdraw the land from auction pending negotiations for sale by private treaty with the Church authorities.
  On the Minister resisting that proposal, it suggested that negotiations should be conducted through the district valuer. The Minister still refused and he was then asked to receive a deputation, which he kindly consented to do. The deputation consisted of the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Highways Committee, the Town Clerk, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) and myself. We discussed the matter very fully and urged upon him all the considerations which made the Corporation feel that the Minister's attitude was obstructing something which was undoubtedly in the interests of the people of Derby.
  It became clear that the Minister's objection, as indeed I think it has been throughout, was based only on one thing, and that was an ideological belief that for some reason he is under a public duty when he sells land to put it up for public sale so that everybody may bid for it. The public authority which is concerned here, the Derby Corporation, is itself the planning authority. It is the body which has been charged by Parliament with the duty of assessing the relative merits of different needs for land use, and the members of the Corporation are the people who decide for what purpose land should be used. Considering the matter fully and fairly as the planning authority, quite apart from its own requirements as a highway authority, the Corporation was fully satisfied, and told the Minister that it was fully satisfied that this proposal was in its view undoubtedly to the clear benefit of the town as a whole. In spite of that, the Minister still persisted in his refusal.
  I should like to make it clear that there is no question of the Minister not getting a proper market value for the land. I do not think that the Minister himself ever suggested that in argument. There is, of course, a quite proper procedure which was proposed whereby the price of the land should be negotiated through the
  1054
  district valuer. The district valuer is a Government official. It is his duty to know market values. No better advice could be available to the Minister on the question. It is his duty to see that any price which was agreed in this way was one which ensured that the Minister obtained the proper market value and that the Corporation paid the full price.
  The Minister's answer to all this was to ask, "Why cannot the Corporation themselves bid in the auction? What better test could there be of market values? After they have satisfied themselves on the right use of the land they can ensure obtaining it by bidding at the auction until they become the ultimate purchasers."
  This somewhat naïve argument received two answers. The first was that the Corporation, as it made clear all along, was perturbed that if it had to bid for this land at an auction it would find that the price was raised by speculative bidding beyond what was considered to be the proper market value. This is an argument which, I fear, fell on deaf ears with the Minister of Health. I do not think that he takes into account in his philosophy the conception that there are such things as speculative values. Whatever is achieved at an auction is fair market value to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Fortunately for the public interest, the district valuer takes a different view. He has to take account of what are proper market values. He knows quite well that these can be inflated by speculative bidding. This has led to a second point which I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman has fully appreciated—that when a public authority like the Derby Corporation goes to an auction to purchase, it has to inquire first of the district valuer to find out what sort of price he would be prepared to recommend for approval. Public money is not allowed to be squandered on speculative values.
  The result is that the public authority goes to an auction with one hand tied behind its back, because it knows that there is a limit to the amount which it is allowed to bid. Sometimes, unfortunately, it is thought that leakages occur and that these values get known, with the result that the authority goes to the auction with two hands tied behind its back. In any event, this was the position, and I do not think that it was

  1055
  fully appreciated by the right hon. Gentleman.
  In this situation the Minister had to be informed that if he persisted in his refusal to negotiate, the only result could be that the Corporation would have to make an announcement before the auction that if it were unsuccessful at the auction, it would have to apply to the Minister for sanction for a compulsory purchase order. The Corporation knew that, if it did this, the result might well be to depress the market so that it might acquire the land at the auction at less than the fair market value. The Minister was given fair warning of this.
  This occasioned him some surprise. I must say that I was surprised to find how little in touch with reality on these matters the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government appeared to be. If he had been a little more in touch with reality, perhaps he would not have introduced the Rent Act with such fervour. In any event, the Minister was fairly warned. This is not what the Corporation wanted to do. The Corporation had no desire to get the land on the cheap. It does not improve its relations with people locally if it has to give a warning of this kind before a public auction. It wanted to pay the fair market value and was prepared to do so, and do it by proper negotiation with the district valuer.
  The Minister persisted in his refusal. The auction took place. The land was knocked down to the Corporation at a figure of £5,500. When the auction was over, the auctioneers made a statement to the effect that, if it had not been for the Corporation's announcement, they estimated that the land would have sold for £7,500, another £2,000.
  I do not know where the truth lies. What is the true market value? Can we consider the implications for a moment? If the right implication is that the fair market value is £7,500, the result is that the Corporation has got the land on the cheap. The Minister has lost £2,000. I suppose that the ratepayers of Derby may be thankful to him, but I do not think that anybody else will be. If the true answer is that the fair market value is £5,500, the Minister by his obstinacy has incurred the auctioneers' fees and to that extent
  1056
  got less than he otherwise would have done, and surely he has caused a lot of unnecessary trouble. But by far the most important point involved is the question of principle. It is whether we are to substitute the haggle of the market for responsible government in these matters. As I have said before, the local authority—the Corporation—is the planning authority. It was not acting in some selfish or irresponsible way but in what it, as the person best able to judge, considered to be in the public interest.
  It is true that, if the Corporation had had to carry out its threat of exercising powers of compulsory purchase, a complicated procedure would have been involved. In order to get compulsory purchase, it would first have had to secure an amendment of the development plan by designating this site for purposes of a church. Naturally a detail of that kind does not normally appear in the development plan. Then there could have been objection to that. There could have been an inquiry. The Minister of Housing and Local Government would have had to give his decision. Assuming that it was approved, the Corporation would then make its compulsory purchase order. Again, there could have been an appeal and reference to the Minister for the final decision.
  In his final answer the Minister of Health has seized on the technicalities of this point as if they gave some justification for his attitude. In fact they do nothing of the sort. The only question here is whether a local authority which is the responsible planning authority is to be trusted in a matter of this kind. If this was a question of disposing of land by one Ministry which was required by another Ministry, there would be no question of it then being put up for sale by auction. It would be transferred from one Minister to another.
  In this case the local authority was supported by the Church authorities. The Bishop of Derby himself supported this application, both to the Minister and publicly in the local Press. When an application of this kind is put forward and supported by all the responsible authorities, have we really reached the state of Government where there is to be abdication of responsibility by the Minister and an insistence that the land

  1057
  has to be put up for public sale by auction?
  We feel that this is really an unwarranted piece of obstinacy on the part of the Minister, who seems wedded here to some ideological principle which forms no part of our planning legislation. There is no requirement anywhere in law that when a Minister sells land he must put it up for public auction; he is quite entitled to do so by private treaty. This matter calls for explanation, and the Corporation of Derby, the Church authorities and the people of Derby are entitled to a more satisfactory explanation than any yet given.
  10.15 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernard Braine): I recognise that the subject which the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) has raised tonight is one of considerable public importance. He has questioned the decision of my right hon. Friend to dispose of certain land, vested in him and surplus to his requirements, by public auction, when a sale by private treaty to one interested party might, in his view, have facilitated the public interest. In doing so, however, the hon. Member is questioning the very basis of the Government's policy governing the disposal of surplus land in their possession and it would be as well if, at the outset, I made the position clear.
  Perhaps I should begin by explaining to the House that when a Government Department possesses land surplus to its requirements it is, in general, the duty of the Minister responsible to seek to obtain the best price for the land, and also to give both public bodies and private persons an opportunity of bidding for whatever is available. Only in the most exceptional cases, where it is abundantly clear that the land in question is imperatively required by a public authority for the public good, can a Minister feel justified in following an alternative course of disposal by private treaty.
  What is the general intention behind this policy? It is not one of ideology, as the hon. Member suggested. It is, surely, to safeguard the interests of the taxpayers at large while leaving to any Government Department owning land opportunity to dispose of it by private sale to a public authority where to do
  1058
  so—and only where—it would manifestly serve an important object of public policy. I cannot conceive that this policy in itself is unsound, although I readily admit that difficulties can arise in its interpretation.
  Such difficulties of interpretation stem from the unavoidable difference of view between a potential purchaser by private sale—who will invariably consider the use to which he would put the land as important in the public interest—and the Minister, who must attempt to assess the extent to which the public interest in the use of the land overrides the equally important public interest of securing the best price for it, and of giving all potential purchasers an equal opportunity to buy.
  It is also of the first importance that a Minister should not prejudge issues of a kind for which adjudicating machinery has been set up under the law, and should not take it upon himself to determine a local pattern of development which is quite outside his sphere of responsibility. In the disposal of hospital land my right hon. Friend adheres to this policy, namely, that the interests of the taxpayers and of the public are best served by selling the land in a way which will realise the best price and enable any interested purchaser, whether public or private, to have a fair chance to acquire it.
  This, in our experience, almost invariably means sale by public auction. It has been our practice to make an exception when the local authority was the former owner of the land. Apart from this, exceptions have been relatively rare, and have occurred only when a private sale has been made to a local authority which needed the land in question for some project of major importance to the community as a whole, as when a local education authority requires land for a school. Even then, if there is any other interested person, except in the most demonstrable case of public importance it is desirable to sell by auction.
  The land to which the hon. Member refers covers slightly under one acre in Kedleston Road, Derby. It was declared surplus to hospital needs in the middle of last year, and the auctioneers were instructed to effect a sale in September.
  The Derby Corporation indicated that

  1059
  there was no objection in principle to the development of the land for residential purposes. In November, 1962, the Derby Town Clerk informed my right hon. Friend that ring road developments in Derby would involve the acquisition and demolition of St. Alkmund's Church in the same parish as the land at Kedleston Road, and that unless the Church could be reinstated in the same parish the compulsory acquisition of the existing building would be strenuously opposed.
  Now this land had never been owned by the local authority, nor by the Church. It was suitable, however, for residential development and the Derby Corporation had so indicated. Moreover, it had come to my right hon. Friend's notice that apart from the local authority there were a number of people who were interested in acquiring the land. He therefore felt it was his duty to give everyone a fair chance and at the same time secure the best price for the taxpayer. A decision to sell the land privately to the Church would have meant that my right hon. Friend was taking it upon himself to decide that the best future use for the land was to use it for the erection of a church rather than for the erection of houses or any other kind of building. My right hon. Friend did not feel that he was competent to take such a decision.
  I must reject any suggestion that sale by auction prejudiced the position of the Church in any way. The Church naturally had a very high interest in obtaining this site, but sale by auction did not in itself prejudice its position, because under the Land Compensation Act, 1961, it would be compensated for the cost of reinstatement. Nor would it be right to assume that the price payable at auction would be vastly greater than that which would have been settled in respect of the sale by private treaty. Land normally will not command more than it is worth and the price obtained at an auction can fairly be regarded as fair market value.
  Mr. MacDermot: Dear, dear!
  Mr. Braine: The hon. Member has given figures tonight. I am not in a position to discuss whether those figures reflect the true market value or not. My right hon. Friend could not judge on an issue of this kind. The assumption is that when a matter goes to public auction it will be dealt with
  1060
  fairly and squarely and the true market price will be realised.
  Even had my right hon. Friend decided to proceed with a sale by private treaty it would have been his duty to secure a price at least as high as he was advised could be obtained by public auction. Thus, the possibility that the price realised by private sale would be less than the market price could not possibly have been a consideration which would have swayed my right hon. Friend towards a sale by private treaty to the Church or any other body, precisely because of his duty to the public at large. We have to ask ourselves, in order to arrive at a fair judgment of this matter, whether any of these arguments would have justified my right hon. Friend in depriving other interested parties of an opportunity to bid for the land.
  In the event, the land was auctioned by order of my right hon. Friend on 5th March. At the auction a letter to the auctioneer from the Derby Corporation was read out. This letter indicated that if the Corporation's bid were unsuccessful it would apply to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government for an amendment of the town development plan so as to designate the land as subject to compulsory purchase and it would then submit a compulsory purchase order for the Minister's confirmation. The result of the auction was that the land was sold to Derby Corporation for the reserve price. There was no other bidder.
  Thus, the end of the story is that each party has attained its objective. The Corporation obtained the land at a price which was certainly no more than the apparent value of the land. The Church authorities, I trust, will be able to provide on the site a satisfactory replacement of St. Alkmund's. The parish church will still be in the parish, in the heart of its congregation. My right hon. Friend has disposed of the land at a satisfactory price and with the fullest regard to the widest conception of his duty to the public interest.
  It may be argued that this result has a fortuitous element, but I do not think that anyone can complain on that account. I repeat that, in the circumstances, my right hon. Friend could do no other than he has done. I ask the

  1061
  hon. Gentleman to reflect that, if my right hon. Friend had been swayed in this particular instance to follow the course the horn. Gentleman would have liked, my right hon. Friend might feel free to be swayed in some other instance, and I am stir, that the hon. Gentleman would be one of the first to criticise my right hon. Friend or any Minister who departed from the general principles laid down. It is not a matter of ideology. It is a matter of common sense, common prudence and good government. I am glad that despite the happy ending to this sad story, the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter tonight, so that I can have an opportunity to say this.
  If this land had been in the possession of the Derby Corporation before, that would be another matter. If it had been in the possession of the Church before, that would be another matter.
  Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: It belonged to the Provost of the Cathedral who sold it to the nursing home for its benefit, and that is how it came into the possession of the Ministry.
  Mr. Braine: I said, and I repeat, that the land was not in the property of the Church. The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct in the point which he makes. It was the property of the Very Rev. Micklem, who had it for his sole use and benefit. It was purchased from him by the trustees of the Royal Derby and Derby Nursing and Sanatorium Association. The Association was the former owner. When my right hon. Friend has to consider the various factors, he has to consider who has owned the land. The Church had not owned the land, nor had the local authority.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The Provost owned it and sold it to a health institution for the public benefit.
  Mr. Braine: He sold it for the public benefit. As I have carefully explained, as a result of my right hon. Friend pursuing the policy which it is his duty to pursue, the matter has ended happily, with the land being acquired for a purpose which must gladden the heart of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend.
  Mr. MacDermot: I am not following the hon. Gentleman's argument. I understand him to say that there has been a happy solution and everyone has achieved his object. I thought that the
  1062
  whole point of the Minister's objection to sale by private treaty here was that he wanted to give an opportunity—by that I presume he meant a real opportunity, not a sham opportunity—to private bidders to bid for the land. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that result has been achieved?
  Mr. Braine: The hon. Gentleman has overlooked, or perhaps he did not hear, what I said earlier. When the view of Derby Corporation was sought in the first place, it indicated that the land was suitable for private residential development. It follows, therefore, when it is within the knowledge of my right hon. Friend that there are several interested parties, that he could do no other than he did.
  Mr. MacDermot: That does not answer the question.
  Mr. Braine: It may be argued that this result has a fortuitous element, but I do not think, in the event, that anyone can complain. It is clear that the operation of the Government's customary policy for the disposal of surplus land has not in this case acted adversely to the interest of any of the parties principally concerned.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The hon. Gentleman says that the Minister could have done no other than he did. That is saying that he had no discretion under the law to grant what the council asked. Of course, he had a discretion under the law. He said so to us in our deputation, the most extraordinary deputation in which I have ever taken part, on either side of the table. If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman has done nothing to improve the case made by the Minister, and he has done nothing to diminish the resentment felt in Derby in Church circles and in the town.
  Mr. Braine: The right hon. Gentleman was not paying attention to what I said. It is not a question of the Minister's discretion. The Minister has discretion. In this particular case he acted in accordance with principles I have explained.
  The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT
  Scientists, Aldermaston (Re-employment)
  Scientists, Aldermaston (Re-employment)
  Senior Scientists and Senior Technologists
  Senior Scientists and Senior Technologists
  Paper-Making Industry
  Paper-Making Industry
  Hydro-Electricity Development, Highland Area
  Hydro-Electricity Development, Highland Area
  Highland Area
  Highland Area
  Batley and Morley
  Batley and Morley
  Railway Employees, Dorset
  Railway Employees, Dorset
  Mexborough and Wombwell
  Mexborough and Wombwell
  Gateshead (Apprenticeships)
  Gateshead (Apprenticeships)
  Disabled Workers, Gateshead and Slough
  Disabled Workers, Gateshead and Slough
  A. Shardlow & Co. (Take-Over)
  A. Shardlow & Co. (Take-Over)
  EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY
  Kirkcaldy, Leven, Methil and Burntisland
  Kirkcaldy, Leven, Methil and Burntisland
  ALGERIA (MINEFIELDS)
  ALGERIA (MINEFIELDS)
  U.S.S.R. (STEEL PIPES)
  U.S.S.R. (STEEL PIPES)
  CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERATION
  CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERATION
  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION
  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION
  CUBA
  CUBA
  MIDDLE EAST (SUPPLY OF ARMS)
  MIDDLE EAST (SUPPLY OF ARMS)
  UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC (GERMAN SCIENTISTS)
  UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC (GERMAN SCIENTISTS)
  DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS (DUTY-FREE SPIRITS)
  DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS (DUTY-FREE SPIRITS)
  UNITED NATIONS (FINANCE)
  UNITED NATIONS (FINANCE)
  FISHING LIMITS
  FISHING LIMITS
  RACIAL DISCRIMINATION (UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION)
  RACIAL DISCRIMINATION (UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION)
  REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA (Mr. LEBALLO)
  REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA (Mr. LEBALLO)
  YEMEN
  YEMEN
  PHILIPPINES (PIRATES)
  PHILIPPINES (PIRATES)
  ISRAEL (FRONTIERS)
  ISRAEL (FRONTIERS)
  TRADE REPRESENTATIVES (TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS)
  TRADE REPRESENTATIVES (TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS)
  ZERMATT (TYPHOID OUTBREAK)
  ZERMATT (TYPHOID OUTBREAK)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agricultural Products (Exports)
  Agricultural Products (Exports)
  Agricultural Workers (Average Weekly Earnings)
  Agricultural Workers (Average Weekly Earnings)
  Farmworkers (Payments in Kind)
  Farmworkers (Payments in Kind)
  Home-Grown Timber
  Home-Grown Timber
  United States Service Units (Milk)
  United States Service Units (Milk)
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Government Assistance
  Government Assistance
  Central London-Heathrow (Road and Rail Access)
  Central London-Heathrow (Road and Rail Access)
  Malta-United Kingdom (Fares)
  Malta-United Kingdom (Fares)
  Czech Airliner, Prestwick (Search)
  Czech Airliner, Prestwick (Search)
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  National Assistance (Rents)
  National Assistance (Rents)
  Pension Increases (Overseas Residents)
  Pension Increases (Overseas Residents)
  National Assistance (Mentally Defective Children)
  National Assistance (Mentally Defective Children)
HOSPITALS
  Middlewood Hospital, Sheffield
  Middlewood Hospital, Sheffield
  Resident Medical Staff (Board and Lodging Charges)
  Resident Medical Staff (Board and Lodging Charges)
  Hospital Plan (Revision)
  Hospital Plan (Revision)
  Newcastle Regional Hospital Board
  Newcastle Regional Hospital Board
  Hospital Building, Yorkshire
  Hospital Building, Yorkshire
  Gateshead and District Hospitals
  Gateshead and District Hospitals
  Hurstwood Park Hospital (Committee of Inquiry)
  Hurstwood Park Hospital (Committee of Inquiry)
  Hospital Supplies (Contracts)
  Hospital Supplies (Contracts)
  Hospital Boards (Appointments)
  Hospital Boards (Appointments)
  Maternity Beds, Greater London
  Maternity Beds, Greater London
EDUCATION
  Psychotic Children
  Psychotic Children
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Typhoid
  Typhoid
  Home Confinements (Home-Help Service)
  Home Confinements (Home-Help Service)
HONG KONG
  Government Employees (Conviction and Dismissal)
  Government Employees (Conviction and Dismissal)
BASUTOLAND
  Mr. Leballo
  Mr. Leballo
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prisoners (Letters to Members)
  Prisoners (Letters to Members)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Underground Garage, Westminster
  Underground Garage, Westminster
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
SHIPPING
  "Titanic" Inquiry (Captain Lord)
  "Titanic" Inquiry (Captain Lord)
BRITISH ARMY
  Dartmoor (Okehampton Range)
  Dartmoor (Okehampton Range)
  Central Ordnance Depot, Didcot
  Central Ordnance Depot, Didcot
SCOTLAND
  Police Houses
  Police Houses

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Chancellor
The Viscount Hanworth—Took the Oath
The Viscount Gought—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PRESS STATEMENT ON CONSUMER COUNCIL
2.35 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: 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, in view of the information supplied to them by the Baroness Burton of Coventry, they will make a further statement concerning any details given orally to the Press on Tuesday, March 26 last when the appointment of a Chairman of the Consumer Council was announced.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): No, my Lords.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, may I ask the Lord President why, when I sent to the Government information, taken from the Daily Telegraph on Tuesday last, which stated, referring to the Minister of State—and I quote—that
"the Minister must have known that both the information and the subsequent correction came from the Government",
and when there were three points which appeared in the reputable Press the next day which were not contained in the Press release of the day before, the Government find it impossible to tell the House from where this information came?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I said that the Government did not think it right to make a further statement.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: But, my Lords, may I ask the Lord President why it is not possible, when quite obviously somebody has slipped up—and we can all make mistakes—for the Government to say that they regret that something of this nature did happen, so that we can leave the matter? Is he aware that in Parliament, where his experience is much longer than mine, when a Member of either side of the House sends in information from a reputable newspaper which would imply that a Government spokesman has made an incorrect statement, it surely is something new for the Government to refuse a statement on it?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not accept that my noble friend's statement was incorrect.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, can the noble Viscount give us some information as to why there is secrecy and reticence in this matter?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not accept that there has been any secrecy in the matter.

UNITED NATIONS BOND ISSUE
2.38 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: 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 regarding the invitation to member countries of the United Nations to subscribe to a series of Bonds, what is the progress to date in regard to members' proportionate subscriptions compared with what a full response proportionately would be.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, of the $200 million worth of bonds offered for sale, approximately $125 million worth have been purchased by 41 Governments, five of whom are not members of the United Nations. Your Lordships may be interested to know that these five Governments were those of the Federal German Republic, Kuwait, the Republic of Korea, Switzerland and Vietnam. In addition, seventeen Governments have

797
pledged themselves to purchase bonds to the value of a further $14 million. More than half the members of the Organisation—members who between them contribute approximately one-third of the regular budget—have neither bought bonds nor pledged themselves to do so. If these members bought bonds on the same scale as their percentage contributions to the regular budget, the issue would be over-subscribed.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of that reply, may I ask whether the noble Earl is able to state to what extent the United Nations is in debt on current account—in other words, how much it is "in the red"?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am not sure that can give my noble friend that information at the moment, but according to the latest information given by the Secretary-General in his report to the last session of the General Assembly, figures for unpaid bills amounted to $139 million. In addition, the costs of the Congo and Middle East operations have been running at approximately 11·5 million dollars per month. Total arrears of contribution to the regular budget and the special accounts as at February 28 amounted to $111 million. As against this, the amount raised by the bond issue is $125 million; if all pledges by members to purchase bonds are taken up, this figure would be $150 million.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl for his reply, may I ask whether he is in a position to make any comment on the fact that since I put down my Question it has been reported in The Times that Britain is one of the few members who so far have paid their contributions in full? It further says:
" … everyone would be expected to contribute. If some refused, the rest would make up the deficit."
Is there no limit to the commitments that our taxpayers are likely to be called upon to bear?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, we are not proposing to undertake unlimited commitments. We have put forward two alternative proposals in the United Nations for future methods of collecting money for special operations, such as the Congo or the Middle East. We want only to get agreement about
798
it, and I believe it will be discussed in the appropriate Committee on May 14.

HONG KONG WOMEN DOCTORS
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 they are aware that women doctors in the Colonial Medical Service in Hong Kong are not paid at the same rate as men, and why this discrimination exists in this Colony alone, while doctors of both sexes are paid at the same rate in the rest of the Commonwealth.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS OFFICE (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, the position in Hong Kong is, I understand, that women medical officers engaged on "career" terms and having the requisite three years' post-qualification experience receive equal pay. Temporary women medical officers are employed on a lower scale. The question of equal pay for temporary women officers, including medical officers, was reviewed by the Government of Hong Kong in September of last year, but for financial and other reasons it was decided that no change could be made.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that this is a most curious position? In the whole of the Commonwealth women doctors are paid equally with men, and now, because of these conditions, the Hong Kong University and the Colonial Medical Service are black-listed in the newspapers and the medical papers which carry advertisements for women doctors. As a result of the position he has outlined—this curious contravention—only one-third of the women doctors in Hong Kong ever reach equal pay. I want to know why there is this discrimination, in view of the fact that the Platt Committee, which examined this matter in 1959, recommended that there should be equal remuneration.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I can add little to what I have said. The Hong Kong Government has reviewed the matter. It is within its

799
jurisdiction, and it feels that a distinction should be drawn between career and temporary doctors. One of the reasons is that the great majority of temporary doctors are married and have other obligations in their lives than the full-time medical profession, and the Hong Kong Government, in its wisdom, has seen fit to draw this distinction: "career" on one side and "temporary" on the other.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Duke whether he is aware that women doctors marry in every country in the Commonwealth?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I am quite aware of it and glad that it is so.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, can the noble Duke say how many doctors are career doctors and how many are temporary; and is there any special reason why a temporary doctor cannot become a career doctor? Is it the point that there may be some restriction on the number of women doctors who may be employed by the Hong Kong Government on a career basis, if that is the correct term, and that therefore doctors remain temporary and in this position of inequality?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, the numbers asked for are as follows: 29 of the 83 doctors in Hong Kong are career and the remaining 54 are serving on temporary terms. As I understand it—and I am subject to correction as I am answering from a portfolio; it is not directly my concern—it is a matter for the officers concerned whether they become career or temporary. It is a matter of terms of reference. Whether under the Hong Kong Administration the number of career doctors is limited is a matter I will find out and inform the noble Lord of the answer.
LORD REA: My Lords, do the 54 doctors comprise both sexes?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The 54 are women doctors.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask—and I am learning from the noble Duke's reply—whether this differential in payment to the tem-
800
porary doctors exists in any other Colonies, in Kenya or Aden besides Hong Kong; or is Hong Kong the only Colony where this differential exists?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I hope the noble Earl will forgive me if I ask for notice of that question.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, could the noble Duke say whether male doctors, if temporary, receive the same salary as a career male doctor? Because if the noble Duke could give us that information, we could see whether the ladies are being treated ill or on a par with the males.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: So far as I am aware, male doctors receive the same salary; but it must be becoming increasingly clear to your Lordships that I am on thin ice in answering these questions. Should I be wrong—and it would not be for the first time—I will let the noble Lord know. I think I am right in saying what I have said.

BASUTOLAND: ARREST OF MR. LEBALLO
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: 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 Mr. Leballo, or other members of the African National Congress, have been arrested by the police in Basutoland, and, if so, on what grounds they have been detained.]
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, a warrant has been issued for the arrest of Mr. Leballo on a charge of incitement to public violence in Basutoland. A warrant was also issued for the search of Mr. Leballo's house and the offices of the Pan-Africanist Congress in Maseru. But I understand that Mr. Leballo has not so far been located. Some small arms, ammunition and documents were discovered during the search. The police arrested two persons for obstruction and one for incitement to public violence. Nine persons were also detained under the Entry and Residence Proclamation, of whom only one is still in custody. None of these twelve were Basutos. Until the investigation is completed, and this will be done as soon

801
as possible, I cannot say what further proceedings will be taken. No arrest in Basutoland of African National Congress members has been reported.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Duke. May I say how grateful we are for his having acquitted himself sc admirably in relation to a Department with which he is not directly concerned? I should like to ask two supplementary questions. First, were the contents of any of the documents that were seized by the Basuto police communicated to the South African police or to the South African Government? Second, in view of the deterioration of relations between the South African Government and the High Commission Territories, would the Government not contemplate taking further action to stop any further deterioration?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, as regards the second question, I am certain that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has this very much in mind and will take all steps that are necessary. As regards the first question, it raises very much wider issues than the original Question raises, and I think it would be unwise for me to reply to it in any sense whatsoever at this stage.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am sure the noble Duke will appreciate that we all attach great importance to the first question that I asked, and I should like to put it down again as a Written Question, not as a supplementary, before the Recess, if there is an opportunity on Wednesday.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl very much and take note that he will put the Question down.

LEGAL AID BILL [H.L.]
2.51 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, last Thursday I made a statement with regard to the Legal Aid Bill, and I told your Lordships that I did riot intend to move, when the time came "That the Bill do now pass". I should, if the House will permit me, like to make a further statement on the matter, for the impression may have been
802
gained that there was something improper in this House discussing and considering the terms of this Bill.
I should like to make it clear, if I can, that there was no impropriety. This House can—and I am sure your Lordships would wish this to be maintained—discuss any Motion or any Bill it chooses. Each House is the guardian of its privileges; and, while it not the duty of either House to uphold the privileges of the other, your Lordships' House recognises the privileges of the House of Commons with regard to finance. Your Lordships are, I am sure, all aware of the procedure with regard to privilege Amendments, by which offending provisions are nullified or removed before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House and is sent to the Commons. The position is different where the contents of the Bill as a whole are purely financial, or where the financial provisions are not susceptible of separation from its other provisions. In Erskine May it is written, at page 807, with regard to such Bills,
" … it may be stated generally that the Commons (contrary to their practice regarding amendments) never waive their privileges in relation to public Bills sent down from the Lords",
and a little later,
"the practice in this matter is now so regular and well understood that the Lords never deliberately send down a Bill which formally infringes the privileges of the Commons."
If the Lords do send down such a Bill, the Commons lay it aside.
While, in my submission, there was nothing wrong in my asking your Lordships to consider this Bill, and nothing unconstitutional in your Lordships' considering it, I did not think it right that I should ask your Lordships to pass it with the inevitable consequence that it would be laid aside. But I hope that none of your Lordships will assert that there is any limitation on what your Lordships can discuss, any more than that there was anything wrong in your Lordships considering Bills in the past which, when they got to the commons, were laid aside. I hope that I have said enough to dispose of any suggestion that your Lordships have, at my instigation, been acting unconstitutionally in relation to this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, last Thursday referred to the Leader of the House of Commons and suggested that he was responsible for the course pursued in

803
your Lordships' House. That, my Lords, is not so. It is my responsibility, and mine alone.
The question may be asked: "What it the purpose of considering a Bill if, when it has been considered by this House, it is going to be laid aside?" I should like to say a little, if I may, on that. I certainly do not share the view that the debate we had on Second Reading was a waste of time. It was a most valuable debate, and I was glad to get your Lordships' reaction to the Government's proposals. I had hoped to get the benefit of your Lordships' views on the detailed provisions of this Bill during the course of the Committee stage. They would, I know, have been most valuable and I hoped that the result would be that, with your Lordships' assistance, we should get a Bill which met entirely with your Lordships' approval.
It was not my intention to ask your Lordships to pass the Bill, but it was proposed to introduce in the House of Commons a Bill the contents of which would be the same as those of the Bill approved, but not passed, by your Lordships. If that House of Commons Bill was passed, it would then come to your Lordships' House. If the contents were not altered in the Commons, your Lordships might not have thought it necessary to spend much time upon it. If the contents were altered your Lordships might have thought it was necessary only to consider the alterations. That was the plan, and I hope that I have said sufficient to satisfy your Lordships that I was not inviting your Lordships to waste your time or to engage in a useless exercise.
From such inquiries as I have been able to make, there is really no prospect of a Legal Aid Bill coming here from the Commons till late in the Session. As your Lordships know only too well, the pressure of work then on your Lordships is very great. In July, it might prove very difficult indeed, if the Bill did come here from the Commons, to find enough time for proper consideration of it, if your Lordships saw it then for the first time. I had hoped that the course I proposed would be to your Lordships' convenience and give your Lordships ample time now for consideration of the Government's proposals. It is an
804
important Bill, designed to remove injustice, and welcomed by all Parties, but I should have liked your Lordships' views upon it during the Committee stage. However, I do not think it would be right, in view of the reaction to my statement last Thursday, for me now to ask your Lordships to give further consideration to the Bill, useful and valuable though that consideration would be, and therefore, I think it right that I should take this opportunity of saying that I shall not, in the circumstances, ask your Lordships to proceed further with the Bill.
2.56 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am sure that the House will appreciate the statement which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has just made and the spirit in which he has made it. I fully understand that his object in introducing the Bill in this House was in order to get the views of this House, and I would assure him at once that it was never in my mind, and I am sure not in the mind of my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, that there was any impropriety in the matter; still less that there was anything to be criticised in the way in which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack dealt with the matter. We have all known him for very many years, and the last thing that we should wish to impute to him is the slightest suggestion of any impropriety.
Having said that, I should add that I think it would have been wiser if the noble and learned Lord had taken the House into his confidence at the outset and explained to us what he had in mind. None of us had any idea, when the Bill was introduced on Second Reading, that it was the intention of the noble and learned Lord to carry the matter up to the Third Reading and then to drop the Bill. Further, if that had been the intention at the time, it might have been advisable if there had been some discussion on this point through the usual channels. I think that the time of the House would have been saved and we might have arrived at an amicable conclusion.
I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that this is a useful or desirable method of ascertaining the views of the

805
House. I do not think it right that the House should be asked solemnly to go through the farce of having a Second Reading of a Bill, Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading, merely in order to ascertain the views of the House. It may be that it has been done on other occasions. I cannot remember. It must have been done in my absence, because, if I had been present I should certainly have raised a protest. There is machinery in this House, and very effective machinery, for ascertaining the views of the House. I would respectfully suggest that we have the Motion. If it was thought desirable to ascertain the views of the House on the principle of giving assistance to unassisted persons who fight successful actions against legally assisted persons, if that was the intention, surely it would have been very easy, in the early days of the Session, when we are sometimes looking for Business and have not much to do, for the Government to present a White Paper setting out all their thoughts in this matter, which we could have discussed on a Motion.
We could have had a wider discussion on such a Motion than was in order on the Second Reading (though I must say that some of us did not limit ourselves to the exact proposals in the Bill) possibly on the whole question of legal aid, and certainly on this particular question, and whether it was desirable to go rather further than was suggested in the Bill itself. I am sure that if that had been discussed in the early days of the Session we could have had a Bill presented in good time and it would have had a very good chance of going through this Session. As it is—and I welcome the decision of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack not to pursue the matter further—it looks as if I shall once more have to make the speech that I usually make in July, saying that we are not given enough time to discuss properly measures which come from another place.
While I am on my feet, I would respectfully ask your Lordships to give me your indulgence if I say one or two words more. This is a perennial problem, this problem of Bills, sometimes complicated, needing the attention of this House coming up late in the Session, with the result that we are pushed either to sit very late when we are not physically in a position to give them our undivided attention, or to pass them cursorily without
806
going through them in that detail which they might deserve. It does seem as if the time has come when we might reconsider our procedure. I think the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack made a suggestion of that kind, and I very much welcome it. We are not afraid of altering our procedure (we encouraged one alteration only the other day), and I am sure we could do better than we are doing at the present time and not be pushed every year into this unhappy position.
It so happens that there is on the Order Paper a Motion in the name of my noble friend Lord Shackleton which is due for discussion fairly soon, and I hope that we may use that opportunity of discussing the whole question of our procedure and whether we can do rather better than we have done in the past. But to-day I should like to welcome the decision of the Lord Chancellor not to proceed further with this Bill. I hope that we shall not lose the Bill, and that it will be possible to get a Bill from another place which we shall be able to support. I can give the noble and learned Lord my own assurance, and I am sure that of my noble friends, that when this Bill comes we shall do everything in our power, because we support the principle of it, to get it through this Session.
3.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his conciliatory approach to this matter, and I want, if I may, to add something from my point of view. I fully accept the point he made to begin with, that the Opposition should have been consulted before this experiment was made. I was under the impression that they had been, otherwise I should have seen to it that they were. I must accept responsibility for not having seen that they were consulted. I was under a misapprehension, and I can only apologise to your Lordships. On the other hand, I do not think the Motion as an alternative means of procedure would do. I very much hope that we shall have an opportunity of discussing both this and other difficulties in relation to the machinery of government on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, to which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, referred. But I do not think this difficulty is primarily a question of procedure, although it is

807
closely bound up with the legal history of Parliament itself.
The real nature of our difficulties stems from the fact that, quite properly, another place desire to consider first the main programme Bills of the Government, and as they always take their time in that consideration, and as they have the apparatus in Standing Committees to consider several Bills in parallel, this means that a number of Bills come to us comparatively late in the Session and we have to work very fast in order to carry them through. I doubt whether an alteration in our procedure would solve that difficulty. This experiment was designed to deal with this very problem, and it is for this reason that I am sorry that in this particular case it has met with this fate. It was felt, I think rightly, to be a legitimate extension of the practice we adopt over privilege Amendments, and I cannot help believing that if I had been more rapid in my appreciation of the fact that the Opposition had not been adequately consulted this Bill might have had a better fate. I do riot want to say more about the matter this afternoon, except to say how grateful I am to the noble Lord for taking this conciliatory point of view and accepting my noble and learned friend's statement in the spirit in which it was tendered.
3.7 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I will not detain you for long, but perhaps I may be allowed to say one or two words. First, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for his very frank and full explanation of the whole matter from its inception. With great respect, I would say that we on these Benches feel that he has come to a very sound conclusion in deciding not to proceed further with the Bill. I am not going into the complications of Parliamentary procedure, but it seems to some of us on this side of the House that the matter arose out of the congestion of Business, and that, in order to facilitate Business, what amounted to a device was arrived at whereby your Lordships were asked to go through the motions of passing a Bill up to the last stage and then accept the fact that it was never meant to go on the Statute Book at all, except by chance if it
808
came up in a similar form from the other House. It seems to me that that is slightly making an abuse of your Lordships' House, to go through the motions of a mime in order to help matters. If time has to be found, and some device has to be found, I would suggest, with respect, that it is for the Government to make time in their own programme and not to utilise your Lordships' House for a way round a difficult situation.

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL
Read 2ª, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
NURSING HOMES BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª, and to be printed.
DOG RACING (APPOINTED DAYS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª, and to be printed.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL
3.9 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, I hope your Lordships feel you are welcoming an old friend. When the earlier Bill was before the House we spent seven days in Committee and three days on Report and a large number of Amendments were dealt with, some 280 in all in Committee and a further 140 on Report. The Bill as it left the House in February, 1961, did, however, reflect the results of your Lordships' consideration, since the No. 2 Bill which the Government introduced in another place in July, 1961, contained further Amendments of detail, a large number of which stemmed directly from proposals made in this House. Although, like other noble Lords at the time, I felt my time had been wasted—your Lordships will remember I was on the other side of the barricade at that time—I do not now think our time was, in fact, wasted. It is a much better Bill, largely, as I hope your Lordships will agree, because of what happened in your Lordships' House last time.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I do not wish to pursue this question of wasting time, but does the noble Lord seriously think that this is the most efficient way in which we can use our time—to collect the views of the House? Does he really think it is necessary to go through hundreds of Amendments, many of which are rejected, on Committee and on Report in order to collect the views of the House? Surely some better way can be found.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am quite certain it is an inefficient way. I am merely saying for the comfort of the noble Lord, and for my own comfort, that all our words were not completely wasted.
The objects of the Bill, as your Lordships know, are really twofold. There is, first of all, the tidying up of the chaos in which the weights and measures law is at the present time. As an instance of how involved is this tidying up, your Lordships may have noticed that the date of the earliest of the Acts of which we repeal portions is 1796. We go back as far as that in our tidying up. That was the Hay and Straw Act, 1796. We are taking away certain sections of that Act. The other, and perhaps to many people more important, aspect of the Bill is that it is a more necessary part of consumer protection. Probably it is the part that ought to be dealt with first in legislation before other consumer protection legislation comes forward. That is just speaking generally.
I was in some doubt how to deal with this Second Reading. It is a long and complicated Bill, and one normally goes into great detail in describing the Bill. But your Lordships have had all this before—although, of course, I am entirely in the hands of the House in this matter. Unless any of your Lordships interrupts me, I intend—I think this should be adequate, although it will take some time, even in this form—to deal with this Bill Part by Part instead of clause by clause, referring to certain clauses in any case, because I think they ought to be referred to, but principally referring to changes which have taken place since the last Bill was before your Lordships. I hope that that will meet your Lordships' wishes. It will certainly curtail some of my discussion, though not, of course,
810
necessarily on other points that noble Lords wish to raise.
Part I of the Bill deals with the basic units of weights and measures—the pound, yard, kilogramme and metre—from which all others are derived. Hitherto, the yard and the pound have been defined by reference to pieces of metal, the Imperial Standards, as they are called, which have been subject to minute changes over the years. Now, for the first time, the yard and the pound are defined by reference to the metre and the kilogramme, thus establishing a constant mathematical relationship between imperial and metric units. They involve very slight changes in the value of the yard and the pound, changes to which I hope your Lordships will not object. (The yard will be one ten-thousandth of an inch longer and the pound one-thousandth of a grain lighter.) But I do not think it is likely to worry your Lordships unduly. The Bill also provides for the maintenance and verification of physical standards representing these units both centrally by the Board of Trade and by the local authorities. Part I also sets up a Commission on Units and Standards of Measurement. The Commission's task is a purely scientific and technical one: it is to advise the Government on technical questions relating to the basic standards and on any changes needed in the definition by law of the units and standards, including new ones.
The only significant change since the earlier Bill was before your Lordships has been to define more precisely the tasks of the Commission on Units and Standards, and to ensure that any recommendation involving adding to or removing units in Schedule I will be subject to consultation with interests concerned, as well as to an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
Part II with its related Schedules (if I may, I will take those together) deals with those units and types of weighing and measuring equipment which are lawful for use for trade. It prescribes the units which may be used, and some obsolete units are to be abandoned. I am sure some schoolboys will regret it, but the rod, pole or perch will be done away with, and, after five years, the bushel, peck and pennyweight. Part II

811
also provides for Board of Trade approval and for local authority testing of equipment used for trade.
Now the changes in this Part of the Bill compared with the corresponding Bill last time. Clause 10(7) has been added to provide for a changeover to the use of metric units by pharmacists, whilst leaving doctors free to continue to prescribe in apothecaries' units. The Bill differs from the 1961 Bill in that all weighing and measuring equipment in use for trade—except where exempted specifically—will not have to be tested and stamped by an inspector, but only such classes as the Board prescribe under subsection (1) of Clause 11. Under existing law all weighing equipment and all measures have to be stamped, but only a few classes of measuring equipment, notably petrol pumps. The original Bill covered all the latter equipment; that is, the measuring equipment. It would not have been practicable to issue the regulations for inspectors' testing procedures within six months, and in any event it may not prove desirable to cover all the many different types in use in bulk transactions between manufacturers and processers. The intention is to cover by regulation under Clause 11 all those classes of equipment which are at present covered and then to consider, case by case, whether further classes of equipment should be brought in. This means, I think, that new processes coming in will have more flexibility.
Clause 14 now gives power—and these are further changes—to lay down by regulation the abbreviation of lawful units so as to protect the public from misleading abbreviations. Formerly, the permitted abbreviations were listed in a Schedule; which was the Fourth Schedule to the previous Bill and which has now disappeared. The revised procedure will give great flexibility. To meet criticism of Clause 16 in another place, it has been amended so as to provide a defence for an innocent employee—for example, a shop assistant in a grocery store—who unwittingly uses unjust weighing or measuring equipment.
Part III of the Bill deals with public weighing or measuring equipment, and it consolidates the various laws governing the provision by local authorities of
812
public weighbridges. Clause 20 deals with the offences in connection with public equipment. The law here has been amended, first, to ensure that purported as well as actual weighings are covered by the clause; secondly, to require the name and address of the person bringing an article for weighing only if the weighing takes place; and, finally, to extend from one year to two years the period for which records of public weighing and measuring must be kept. The first and third of these changes have been made in order to deal with particular cases of fraudulent practices which have come to our notice—for example, where a weight ticket was issued but no weighing had, in fact, taken place.
Part IV, being, with its Schedules, a very detailed part of the Bill, I must go into slightly greater detail. This deals with regulation of transactions in goods. It provides for the use in everyday trade of the units and equipment defined and controlled by earlier Parts of the Bill. Its basic purpose is to ensure that buyers are provided with the most accurate information possible about the quantity of goods they are buying. Thus, Schedules 4 to 8, which are related to this Part of the Bill, lay down requirements providing for the various ways in which the quantity of various specified products shall be brought to the notice of the customer. Part IV itself brings these requirements into effect and gives the Board of Trade power by order to extend or modify them, or to apply them to products not at present covered by the Schedules. The Board may make such orders only after consultation with the interests concerned and with the approval of both Houses of Parliament.
The Schedules, 4 to 8, cover a very wide range of foodstuffs, household products and all types of solid fuel. Buyers must be informed of the quantity of these products, but the detailed requirements vary for different commodities. The requirements may be to sell by weight or measure, to mark the quantity on the container of pre-packed goods, or to "make the weight known" in some other way. Wherever practicable, the Bill requires that the weight to be given shall be the net weight, and this is the case for all those non-food products (except for large packs of fertiliser) which are required to be marked with their weight. Very many foodstuffs must be

813
weighed net, or, if pre-packed, marked with their net weight; but this requirement would be impracticable for some goods; for example, meat, where, for hygienic reasons, it is necessary to weigh the goods on a piece of greaseproof paper, or for certain pre-packed foods, such as soft fruit, which are liable to heavy and unpredictable loss of weight by evaporation. These products, therefore, may be weighed gross with their container, provided that the container is within a specified limit. The Bill goes further with certain staple foodstuffs, and requires that they shall be pre-packed only in certain specified quantities, thus simplifying the shopper's task of comparing the value for money of different brands. These detailed requirements are to come into force two years after the passage of the Bill; of three years in the case of draught spirits.
Clearly, when a buyer knows how much he is buying, he must get the quantity and no less. This Part of the Bill includes, for the first time in national legislation, a general provision making it an offence to deliver short weight or measure. This is in Clause 24. There is also provision in Clause 23 for delivery notes to be given for a wide range of goods; and Clauses 25 to 28 provide defences and safeguards to traders in proceedings, if they have taken all proper steps to comply with the law.
My Lords, the main changes since last time are these. The powers in Clause 21 to make orders and regulations are somewhat extended. They now cover, for example, the sale of pre-packed goods from vending machines, and methods of calculating quantities for the purpose of the Bill; for example, the drained weight of fruit in a tin. Clause 33(1) and (3) have been added. Clause 33(1) deals with methods of sale by quantity and Clause 33(3) gives the Board power to provide by order (subject to Affirmative Resolution of Parliament) that for goods covered by the order a requirement to "make known" the weight of the goods may be satisfied by the retailer's providing weighing equipment for the customer to weigh the goods himself. The purpose of Clause 33(3) is to provide for the case of pre-packed foods—particularly fruit and vegetables—which lose weight by rapid and unpredictable evaporation, and for which it is not practicable, particularly in self-service
814
stores, to require the weight to be marked or the goods to be weighed by the shopkeeper.
On the commodity Schedules the changes include Schedule 4, which deals with food; the "do-it-yourself" weighing provision of Clause 33(3) is allowed for fresh fruit and vegetables only. Secondly, pre-packed meat is no longer required to be marked with weight—because of difficulties for New Zealand packers—but the weight must, of course, be made known to the buyers. Thirdly, horse meat has been dropped from the Schedule altogether, since very little is now sold for human consumption. Fourthly, pre-packed butter and fats, dry fruits and other goods in Part IX are to be marked with their net weight instead of either net or gross weight. Fifthly, dried fruit and vegetables, flour products and coffee powder have been added to the list of goods to be packed in specified amounts. Fruits and malt loaves and large shortbread are exempted. Mushrooms have now been included. Spirits may still be sold draught in one of three measures, one-quarter, one-fifth, or one-sixth gill—
LORD STONHAM: Shame!
LORD DERWENT: —but the seller must use one measure for all the four spirits covered, gin, rum, whisky, and, I know my noble friend Lord Jessel will be glad to hear, vodka.
Schedule 5, which deals with ballast, is now confined to sale and delivery and no longer covers carriage for reward as it did in the old Bill. Schedule 6 deals with solid fuel. First, 1¼ cwt. is permitted as one of the specified weights in which solid fuel may be bagged, provided that no other size is carried on the same vehicle. If coalmen are willing to carry 1¼ cwt. bags, as they are in certain parts of the country, they should not be prevented from doing so, especially in National Productivity Year. Secondly, securely closed packs of fuel of up to 60 lb. are exempted from requirement to pack in specified quantities, to enable customers to buy and carry away conveniently-sized packs from shops and machines. Thirdly, provision to allow coal distribution by new methods in specially designed vehicles—the "autobagger"—which carry the coal in bulk and weigh

815
it at the customer's door. Fourthly, miners' concessionary coal is now exempted from the need to bag in specified amounts.
Schedule 7 deals with miscellaneous goods. First, perfumery and toilet preparations are now covered, which follows an undertaking given last time in this House. Secondly, tobacco is now excluded. Thirdly, anti-freeze, linseed oil and aerosols are now covered. Fourthly, nails may now be sold by count as well as by weight. Schedule 8 is now limited to mixtures wholly or mainly composed of scheduled goods, instead of relating to mixtures containing scheduled goods, which was the old wording. So much for Part IV.
Part V is concerned with the local administration of these provisions. Enforcement of weights and measures law will continue to be, as in the past, a matter for local authorities. The Bill provides for changes in the distribution of weights and measures functions among local authorities in view of population changes since the last century. In England and Wales the weights and measures authorities will be counties and county boroughs; non-county boroughs and urban districts with a population of over 60,000, if they wish; and smaller non-county boroughs and urban districts—and rural districts of any size—if the Board of Trade agrees. Non-county boroughs which are already weights and measures authorities may continue for a period. In London the existing weights and measures authorities will remain until changed by a Board of Trade order. In Scotland the existing pattern will continue.
As regards the changes in this Part, first of all Clause 34 has been altered so as to allow rural district councils (regardless of population) to apply to the Board of Trade for the exercise of weights and measures functions. Clause 35 has been altered to give the Board power to designate by order (subject to annulment by Parliament) the weights and measures authorities in the Greater London Area. In another place my right honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that it is the Government's intention to give the weights and measures function to the London boroughs, if the amalgamations proposed in the London Government Bill go through as planned.
816
Part VI deals with miscellaneous and general. This Part covers various matters such as powers of inspectors, offences, prosecutions and penalties, transitional arrangements about bread and milk—perhaps, for the sake of clarity I had better say milk and bread—the application of parts of the Bill to Northern Ireland, procedure on orders and regulations, interpretation, the repeal of existing national and local legislation and the date of operation of the Bill. The changes in this Part have been Clause 62(1), which allows the continued use in non-retail trade of certain customary units of quantity not in Schedule 1: for example the Petrograd standard which is used in the wholesale timber trade, or the pennyweight, after this is removed from Schedule 1. The other change in this Part is in Clause 61 which extends the existing law on bread and milk, which would otherwise expire in January, 1965, until the bread and milk Schedules come into force two years after the Bill's enactment.
That is the general description of the Bill. Your Lordships know its purpose. The most disagreements we are likely to have will probably be Committee disagreements; they may of course, be extensive. This Bill is necessary. It will tidy up the law and it will indeed be a protection to the consumer. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Derwent.)
3.30 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, we are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, for his lucid statement of what is in this Bill and the ways in which it differs from the old Bill. I must confess that the celerity with which he delivered his brief will not embarrass those who are familiar with the old Bill, but may at least have given some difficulty to those who had not yet read the Bill; but I congratulate him on an extremely useful statement which we shall study with interest. I personally—I am sure he will agree—welcome the fact that we have a new team on the Government side to deal with this Bill; not that we had any complaint about the former noble team, but we shall have the particular advantage on this occasion that at various times we shall be able to quote in aid the views which were expressed on

817
the old Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and I am sure that will greatly help in convincing your Lordships if any small disagreement should arise.
We also are very glad to note that the list of speakers to-day on this very important Bill is to be graced by the speeches of two Ministers, and therefore it is with some regret that we learn that Back Bench support on the Government side is left entirely in the capable hands of the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, to whom we are frequently grateful for filling this kind of gap because he always examines measures objectively and gives original comments on the matters to be discussed. I must, however, confess it sometimes puzzles me that when we are discussing Central Africa or Rhodesia or Kenya noble Lords opposite rally round in tremendous numbers—they even fly to this Chamber from distant parts to take part in the discussion; but when we have a subject such as we are discussing to-day, which is of immediate and important concern to all the citizens in this country, then we are not favoured with the same measure of influential advice.
Despite a number of criticisms, and the many further improvements we shall strive to make in it, the Opposition very warmly welcome and support this Bill. Indeed, it is one of our major criticisms of the Government that it has taken over thirteen years and three Bills to bring us in sight of the realisation of the major recommendations of the Hodgson Committee. As the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has mentioned, and as he and I recall with some nostalgia, because we spent twelve Parliamentary days and many long nights on it, there was the first Bill—and fortunately, as he has said, and indeed I agree, the work was not wasted because all the improvements we then made are in fact still in the present Bill. The two noble Lords who then presided on the Government Bench are now doing other work. But it is still the case that, under the new Bill, the fishmonger who fillets your fish will not be required to pack the bones with the fillets or to make out a bill showing the weights before and after.
We failed to convince on the previous occasion when we applied the same arguments to poultry, but obviously over the years our words have been weighed and
818
not found wanting, because the poulterer who eviscerates your poultry will not now by law be required to put the entrails back on pain of making out two weight tickets. It is also conceded that through a transparent wrapper the housewife is able readily to count six eggs or eight tomatoes. These apparently trifling points—and there are many which we corrected in the old Bill—are not unimportant to traders; they are important to them. On the other hand, in our consideration of this Bill we must bear in mind that, while we strive to give the consumer every possible protection, it is scarcely less our duty to ensure that the regulations are necessary, reasonable and capable of practical application. It is no service to the housewife to impose theoretical safeguards which increase the price beyond what she can afford or which make it impossible to continue a service which the retailer is willing to give and the housewife anxious to receive.
The Bill on which we laboured was dropped. Its successor was stillborn, published but not discussed. And now we have the third attempt, which has been the subject of considerable discussion and some improvement in another place. We on this side of your Lordships' House regard it as our first priority to get this measure on the Statute Book and we shall do all we can to assist in its progress. But as it may well be decades before further similar legislation can be considered by Parliament, we want this Bill to be as good and as forward looking as we can make it. We still think it is capable of improvement in many ways and we shall have quite a number of what we regard as constructive suggestions to put forward at Committee stage; and on a much smaller number of quite important points we shall endeavour to convince the Government that decisions they have made in another place are the wrong decisions.
We regard this—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, made it clear that the Government also regard it—as a major Bill which provides an important part, but only a part, of the total service of consumer protection and advice that we want to build up. We in fact see this as a new service in this country, unifying and developing naturally out of existing services, which must, of course,

819
be strengthened and augmented. But we in fact look ahead to a complete system of consumer protection based on the local authorities, who will administer it in a democratic way; and, so far as this Bill is concerned, the main instrument in this field will, in our view, be the weights and measures inspectorate.
Whether the right size of the unit of weights and measures inspectorate has been chosen so far in this Bill is something we can discuss at a later stage, together with the duties, status and prospects of inspectors. But, in any case, I personally visualise the weights and measures inspector developing into a sort of weights and measures Ombudsman, and his office developing into a clearing house for consumers' complaints and inquiries. Therefore, if the Bill is to operate in a matter in which I believe we all intend, immediate action will have to be taken to train a substantial number of additional inspectors. We are placing on their shoulders four entirely new additional groups of duties, every one of which involves a substantial volume of work; and there are ten other groups of duties where their work will be greatly extended. Obviously, the machine will become hopelessly overloaded and the Act almost a dead letter, unless enough inspectors are available for the efficient discharge of their responsibilities.
Sometimes I think, modestly, that the best we and some Governments can hope to achieve is not to make matters worse, and I think that is particularly the case in measures of this kind. Whereas we may remember gravely, learnedly and passionately discussing improvements, and we see a Bill receive the Royal Assent and go on the Statute Book, and we say "Ah, all that is a job of work we have done," how often did we sit back and think about the much greater amount of work that we had given to other people to work and pay for, and what good it does? I am quite sure that this is an important and invaluable Bill. But that will be true only if we provide the means for it to be carried out and administered. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that this point should be made.
Estimates vary, but it seems to me that by the time the clauses of this Bill become operative we shall need at least one-third more inspectors than the number we have now. I hope that, if
820
not to-day, at some future stage during our discussion of the Bill, the Government will say what are their plans for meeting this need. We do not want to repeat the probation officers' pattern, where, despite the increasing duties that we heaped constantly upon them, it took us literally years to persuade the Government to agree to reasonable salary scales to facilitate the recruitment of the necessary additional officers.
In some cases we on this side of your Lordships' House will urge the retention by the inspectorate of duties which the Government, in the Bill as it stands at present, wish to take from them. A notable example of this is in the sales of fuel. For example, the sales of logs by weight are little more than a ramp; yet the Bill's provisions apply only to sales up to half a ton in weight. I was looking over the weekend at particulars of the recent weighings of logs on one public weighbridge, and out of 145 loads only one was under half a ton and thus would be subject to the provisions of this Bill, and the other 144 loads would all have been exempt. Yet I know of quite a number of prosecutions under other Acts which show frequent examples of four or five cwt. being sold as one ton, and of two tons being delivered and five tons charged for. It would be quite wrong if we let this Bill go from us without taking care of such things.
We shall also press the Government to reverse their present decision to withdraw the inspectors' present powers to stop coal delivery lorries and test the weight of sacks offered for domestic sales. This relates to a cruel fraud, practised usually against the poorest people who buy their coal only a sack at a time. It is a fraud to which the trader is usually not a party—indeed, a fraud of which he has no knowledge; and, as on so many occasions in this Bill, the Amendments we shall press will be designed for the protection of honest traders as much as for the protection of trusting consumers. It is indeed astounding that in this particular section, and in a Bill expressly designed to protect the consumer, the Government should wish to sweep away valuable legislation which has been built up painfully and expensively by local authorities during the last hundred years for the protection of the local citizenry against fraud.

821
I think that the Government have also blundered over the question of the net weight of pre-packed fruit and vegetables. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, will remember that on at least a dozen occasions I raised this question—he probably thought ad nauseam; and the burden of the constant advice that I gave was that the only marking for pre-packed vegetables and fruit which would be practicable for the producer and at the same time fair to the grower and to the retailer, was a net weight at the time of packing, and I urged constantly that the inspection should be at the packing end, which would be much cheaper and much more efficient. The Government, however, did not accept my arguments then, and they have not accepted them now. They have in fact adopted what I regard as this fantastic suggestion, to which Lord Derwent referred, that these goods should be unmarked, but that retailers should provide a scale on which the housewife should be able to weigh her strawberries or her pre-packed mushrooms or her pre-packed vegetables, or what-have-you.
Just imagine the young housewife going through the self-service store, with little Johnny in one hand and a wire basket in the other, and having to halt at the stand with her punnets of strawberries, and then to let go of little Johnny and of her wire basket, and then herself weigh the punnet to see what the weight of the fruit is. I notice that your Lordships smile. It is, of course, laughable. We are a gathering of grave and sober men and women of judgment. There has been a much larger gathering of grave and sober men and women of judgment in another place, and no doubt the Civil Service have put their heads together before this. But we are asked to consider this as a proper, logical, sensible way of protecting the consumer. The Government's way of doing it is no protection whatsoever. It merely provides a convenient method for the trader to evade the basic provision of the Bill, that fruit and vegetables should be sold by net weight. It is something which I submit is quite intolerable in fact in this section the so-called "housewives' charter" bluntly tells the housewife to protect herself if she can. Quite obviously she cannot by this means. All this has arisen because the Government have run away
822
from this difficult problem. The problem—and it applies to fresh fruit and vegetables far more than any other commodity I can think of—is that in a short space of time these commodities lose by evaporation a considerable portion of their weight.
I do not in any way budge from the figures which I have quoted before, and which were requoted in this House quite recently by the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald. One cannot, in my submission, insist that the packers should apply a net weight to the package, because owing to the particular humidity at the time and the length of time between packing and sale, both being impossible to forecast, the variation would be beyond the limits of tolerance allowed by this Bill. In this field an actual unqualified net weight is impracticable and puts impossible burdens on the packer and retailer. The Government suggestion, while giving carte blanche to the packers and retailers, gives no protection at all to the housewife. While I do not budge, and shall not budge, from what I have said before, we shall press again for this kind of sensible arrangement which we asked for in the old Bill.
I cannot understand the stand of the Government here when, as a result of our previous discussions, they agreed to net weight markings on other goods, like detergents, which lose weight by evaporation. Mention of detergents reminds me that we are still far from satisfied that the Bill, as it stands, will prevent deliberately deceptive packaging. It should not be necessary for the firm which sells its detergent in a smaller package to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds to advertise the fact that their smaller package contains much more detergent than a much larger package. It would be much better if the detergent manufacturers played fair by the consumer, all saved money, sold their goods at a lower price and, indeed, made a donation to the Consumers' Advisory Council so that it could function properly, instead of struggling along on a miserable pittance provided by the Government. It is a "bit much" to suggest that this Council, in addition to carrying out the manifold important functions which were suggested by the Molony Committee, should also be expected to advise the Government on

823
weights and measures matters. It will have neither the personnel nor the "know-how", as I am sure my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry will clearly demonstrate when she comes to make her speech.
Another point on which we shall insist before this Bill leaves us is that the wholesalers must sell fish to retailers by net weight. The Government reasoning on this point has been quite remarkable. In January, 1961, for example, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, told us that the trade was virtually all conducted by net weight; and from that he reasoned that it was right for the Bill to say that transactions should be by gross weight. But in February of this year, in another place, Mr. Denzil Freeth indicated that not enough sales were made by net weight, and thus it was right for the Bill to say that transactions should be by gross weight. As they drew the same conclusions from contradictory facts, it is fair to conclude that they started from the conclusion and worked back to the facts. It is another example where, if I may say so, the Government seem to have forgotten that, "it ain't what you don't know that causes the trouble, but what you do know what ain't so". No doubt we shall have the opportunity to point that out to them at a later stage. We shall ask for a discussion on the basis of equity and true facts, and will even provide for the odd place where there is no weighing machine for fish.
Among many other improvements we shall seek will be the removal of the reproach that it will be possible for an Englishman to order a drink measuring one-sixth of a gill—which the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, once described as "no more than a dirty glass". We shall seek to allay the anxiety of precision instrument makers—and I think this may be a new point—who do not share the equanimity of most of us in regard to the increase in the length of the standard yard by one 8,000th part of an inch. This is a point which is likely to cause a difficulty with precision instrument makers. We shall also seek to demolish what we regard as the absurd suggestion that it will be possible to comply with the Bill's requirements in respect to the weight of loose sliced bread. There are many more things we can raise at the appro-
824
priate time, and I hope we shall do so constructively and usefully.
This is a good, important and necessary Bill, but I am sure that before the end of this debate your Lordships will be convinced that it can be a much better Bill. We shall table constructive Amendments and support them with ascertained facts and sound arguments. If the noble Lords opposite are in a position to base their decisions on those arguments, we shall together, in the next few weeks, do a good job for consumers and honest traders.
4.57 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, yesterday evening I spent a long time reading the Second Reading speeches in the debate in your Lordships' House in November, 1960. I must confess that the more I read of this Bill the more complicated it sounded to me, as a layman; but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that the most important thing is to get it on to the Statute Book, with improvements as necessary. I should like to thank Lord Stonham for the kind references he made to me in regard to the Second Reading debate. It may well be that when the Bill reaches its Committee stage my noble friends will have Amendments to put forward, and many of them are far more knowledgeable than I on this matter of weights and measures. As has been mentioned, the original Bill fell by the wayside because there was not time in the other place for discussion, but this time there seems an excellent chance that the Bill will get on the Statute Book before the end of the Session.
I should like to confine my specific remarks to three things: fruit and vegetables, washing powders, and cereals. So far as washing powders are concerned, I seem to remember that on the Second Reading of the last Bill my remarks attracted some attention from some sections of the Press; but I may say that they were taken completely out of context. My point now, as it was then, is that it is very difficult to sell washing powders specifically by net weight, because of condensation in the packets. I have checked this with a number of grocers and they all endorse those remarks. But what concerns not only me but many people is the surfeit of free gifts which now seem to be put in with various commodities. Admittedly

825
these gifts probably weigh very little, but if only the weight corresponding to the value of the free gift could be made up—and I refer more specifically now to cereals—the general public would get a much better deal. These monster packets of detergent do not always give the marvellous value to the consumer which they are supposed to give.
I spent an hour last Saturday with my local greengrocer discussing fruit and vegetables. Here a great problem must arise, because the temperatures of the various greengrocers' shops must necessarily vary; so must the length of time in which vegetables and fruit remain on the counters of shops. One may have a very wet Saturday or a very wet weekday, when the housewife may say that she will not venture out until the following day, in which case the fruit is sometimes left for sale until the following day. Here the difficulty arises of how the question of weight should be dealt with, especially in pre-packed containers, because more and more fruit and vegetables are now being sold pre-packed.
Reading one of the greengrocers' journals which I was given, I noticed reference to the fact that there is in Cardiff a shop which is divided into two sections: one sells fruit and vegetables entirely without packing; the other section is entirely pre-packed. So that the consumer has a choice. But so far as the weight is concerned in pre-packing, I should have thought that one way out of the difficulty would be to stipulate the average net weight when packed. I wonder whether the Government would consider that a reasonable compromise. I am not at all sure that the current proposals by the Government, as I understand them, are entirely satisfactory, although to have a specific net weight when packed to be sold to the consumer may present difficulties both to the wholesaler and to the retailer. But that is something which we can thresh out properly on the Committee stage.
Now, my Lards, I turn to cereals. There is a rather curious proposal here: that cereal biscuits under a certain weight need not be sold by net weight. Cereal biscuits, I should have thought, more or less weigh the same. There is "shredded wheat" and there are the "shreddies", but there is not a great deal of difference
826
in the weight—at least, I should not have thought so. I wonder whether that provision is entirely necessary. The local grocers and greengrocers are, on the whole, very honest traders, and they do their best to serve the public well. What this Bill needs to do—and I think, by and large, what it does—is to strike a reasonable balance between giving the shopkeeper a fairly rational run of the mill, so to speak, and allowing him reasonable leeway; and protecting the consumer, so far as can be done, without bureaucracy creeping in.
We are now in the era of the self-service store. Some people regret that, but I am the last person to decry the self-service store. But the small private store where one knew the shopkeeper, where one could discuss with him the best type of apple to buy, the cheapest type, and the best cut of meat, was appreciated very largely by the housewife; and also by the menfolk many of whom shop now, myself included, particularly on a Saturday morning. We learn to know these people and to go by their advice. But in the self-service stores one cannot quite get this service. Practically everything is pre-packed which makes it easier for the housewife, but I should have thought that at least some of the nutritive value is lost. However, we must move with the times and accept things as they are.
My Lords, may I turn now to another point which was discussed when the last Bill came before Parliament? That is, this question of fruit in tins. It is again mentioned in this Bill, but too many tins contain mostly juice and no fruit. Perhaps on the Committee stage we can discuss this matter further.
LORD STONHAM: You can count on that.
LORD AUCKLAND: But this is a Second Reading debate and it is not an opportunity to make long specific speeches. The Bill in itself is welcome. As has been said, improvements have been made in another place. When the earlier Bill left this House in 1961 it was a greatly improved Bill, and now comes our opportunity to improve it still more. But the Bill as a whole has been sensibly drafted; its provisions are in the main reasonable, and from these benches certainly we give it wholeheartedly a Second Reading.
4.10 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY:
My Lords, the Molony Committee spoke of the monumental delay which characterised the treatment of the Hodgson Committee Report, and I should hope, as a comparative newcomer to this House, that this delay is perhaps at last reaching an end. As we all know, the Hodgson Committee was set up in 1948 to review existing legislation about weights and measures, and produced its Report two years later. But, again, it was not until the autumn of 1960 that a Bill incorporating the main recommendations was produced. This was before I had the privilege of coming to this House, but I then followed with much admiration the detailed and knowledgeable work of my noble friends here. In fact, as has already been said, this was so detailed and so excellent that, after being heavily amended, the Bill was withdrawn in the summer of 1961 when it had become evident to the Government that there was no chance of its becoming law that Session.
I should like, if I may, to pay tribute to the work of my noble friends, and to quote what was said by the President of the Board of Trade when he moved the Second Reading in another place on November 12 last. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 667, col. 33]:
"I should like to say straight away that consideration of the earlier Bill in another place resulted in many improvements in the Committee stage there and I should like to place on record my appreciation of those who did so much to improve the Bill."
My Lords, I am not quite as enthusiastic as those noble Lords who have preceded me in this debate. In fact, I find myself rather in accord with the feelings which were expressed by Mr. George Darling when speaking on Second Reading from the Opposition Front Bench in another place, when he said that there had been many kind promises and two false starts, but that now, seeing the promised Bill, he welcomed it, but with critical misgivings. It seems to me, looking generally at the Bill, that, broadly, it can be divided into three parts, the first part being concerned with securing uniformity of administration and, therefore, mainly of interest to local authorities and the 850 inspectors who enforce the law at present; the second part being related to permitted stan-
828
dards of measurement; and the third part being that which will most interest the general public.
We have a long tradition of British legislation to ensure that the consumer gets fair weight for his money, but I think the whole House would agree with me that we are nowadays faced with the fact that much of this is obsolete because of the growth of pre-packaging and the tendency to sell goods by the package rather than by number or weight. I hope the Minister of State would not differ front me (and I do not think he would) if I said that the object of this new Bill is to ensure that the number or weight of the contents is set out on the package and that the consumer is given a fair chance of knowing what he is paying for and of comparing one price with another.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, if I may just interrupt the noble Lady, I would add "what he is paying for in quantity", of course. I must get that clear.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: Quite right. Looking at the definition given by the President of the Board of Trade in another place, I should think there is not much between us on this aspect. There is one further quotation which I should like to give the House, and that is the broad summary by the President of the Board of Trade on Second Reading, at column 33:
"The subject of the Bill is technical, and its details are necessarily complicated, but in its application it is right down to earth. It seeks to bring together and modernise a great mass of out-of-date legislation and to give the consumer much better protection than present law provides. It concerns any of us who buy or sell anything—and even those who get their shopping done for them. This is a Bill which has something for everyone."
I think we should all wish to be sure that the application is "right down to earth", and that we should agree that sometimes this is one of the most difficult things to achieve, certainly by legislators.
To-day I want to look at two main aspects in this connection and two important matters which arise from the Bill. As one of the previous speakers has said, in a Bill of this nature it is difficult not to make Committee points rather than Second Reading ones, but

829
I will try in that respect. Speaking generally, there seem to be few major alterations in this Bill, now that it has passed all its stages in another place. This was my opinion at the end of the Committee stage—and I have all the reports of the Committee stages here. I agree with Mr. Darling when he said that the main Opposition complaint against the Bill was that in many important aspects it was too much concerned to protect existing trade practices, even when those practices ran counter to the basic principles of the Bill. I do not know what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will say to this, but on reading through very carefully the Government's objections to many of the Amendments put forward during the Committee stage by the Opposition in another place I wonder whether the Board of Trade are not basing their arguments on opinions taken some twelve or thirteen years ago, when the Hodgson Committee was set up, because it has been on the files since then, and it seems to me that many of the objections put forward by the Government are better suited to retailing and horticulture then than to-day. I do not think that the Government realise that we now have retailers and horticulturists keenly alive to modern ideas and not nearly as antagonistic to progress as the Government imagine.
There are many comments that have come to me from consumer organisations and from the general public, knowing that I am interested in the consumer. I have been told, time and time again, that it seems that this is a traders' Bill, and I pass that comment over to the noble Earl. I think it is a useful one to note. Many people who have talked to me consider some of the omissions regrettable and one major inclusion—the wrapper allowance principle—to be quite simply an error. I should like to ask the noble Earl who is going to reply whether he can tell us why this wrapper allowance principle has been included.
Another general point which is troubling consumer bodies is the absence of anything definite in the Bill about advising the President of the Board of Trade on what the views of the general public are on weights and measures matters. On the original, No. I Bill suggestions were put forward for an advisory council, and, as the Minister knows, this was returned to when the
830
present Bill was in another place. But the Government turned down the idea, saying that it would be one of the functions of the National Consumer Council to keep the President of the Board of Trade informed on consumer views.
Here I should like to say something about this Consumer Council and why I feel that it will not be able to do what we have all hoped. I want to say something, first of all, in all sincerity, to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, opposite, because I think from what he had to say last week he does not quite understand the position in so far as I am concerned. He was not a Member of Parliament during the ten years when I was fighting this battle in another place. During those ten years in opposition against the Party of the noble Lord I fought for the establishment of a Consumer Council. I found it very hard to believe, when at last the Government agreed to set up the Molony Committee in July, 1959, that there had been a change of heart. I found it very difficult to believe because, aften ten years of going one way, such a sudden change of direction was a little difficult to understand, unless one assumed it was because of the pressure of public opinion and the advent of a General Election. Even feeling that, I tried not to take up too strong a position in my own mind but to wait and see whether really and truly the Government had had a change of heart.
I think the noble Lord would do me the justice to say that in the debate which we had in this House on November 14 last I went out of my way to say that I thought this Council must be made to work, if possible. I was anxious that it should work, and I was waiting to see the future actions of the Government to try to decide for myself whether or not they really meant business. I want to try to explain to the noble Lord—I am not asking him to agree with me—why I think this Government do not wish the Consumer Council really and truly to be effective. I do not propose to argue the points—I know that can he done after Easter—but I should like to set them out. The first is, it took the Government eight months to persuade anybody to act as Chairman. The second is this important announcement was made in a written statement. It is quite contrary to the wishes of Parliament in either House that important policy decisions

831
should be announced by written statement thereby depriving Members of the opportunity of commenting on them at the normal time when statements would otherwise be made. I will come back to that, if I may, when I have outlined the seven points.
The third point is the matter of an honorarium—and I should merely like to quote to the noble Lord from Molony, on page 290, paragraph 882:
"The Chairman, particularly, will shoulder heavy and more or less continuous responsibilities and we consider he should be expected to devote half his time to the business of the Council. We recommend he should be paid about £3,000 per annum … "
Now I am going to leave out some words because they refer to the members of the Council and the last sentence relates to the previous quotation:
"We think that the independence and status of the Council which we deem all important would be enhanced by the salary arrangements we propose."
I do not believe that the payment of an honorarium—and I am not concerned with the amount of the honorarium—is likely in people's minds to convince them that the Chairman of the Council is being expected by the Government to devote enough time to the work of the Council.
The fourth point is the appointment of a civil servant as Director. The noble Lord, when he replied to me the other day, implied that this really was in accordance with what Molony has suggested. With respect, I cannot see how the noble Lord can draw the conclusion that Molony recommended that the Director should be an undersecretary, seconded from the Government Department with which the Council will have to deal. If I might bring it to the noble Lord's attention, he quoted to me, as a basis for that fact, what Molony said:
"Our conception of his position can best be expressed by proposing that he should be styled Director rather than Secretary and should normally expect to contact Government Departments at the Under-Secretary level."
Now, by no stretch of the imagination, can that be construed as saying that he should be an under-secretary.
The fifth point is the suggestion that the Director should be a member of the Consumer Council. I raised this point
832
with the noble Lord last week, and I told him—I do not remember the exact words—that this was most unusual or quite extraordinary. Since I asked the noble Lord this Question, I have this week-end asked a great many people (and I believe all of them, without exception, were strong supporters of the Party of the noble Lord; and many of them were directors of industrial organisations); and not one of those people—and I asked them again this morning—had been able to give one example where a paid director was a member of the council of which he is the paid servant. This Government are in power and if they wish to make a change, obviously they are quite entitled to do so; but the point I am making is that if something quite unusual or extraordinary is done it will be better to say, "We are making a change, and we are doing this", than to imply that it is quite customary or that this Consumer Council is different from any other body—which it is not.
On the sixth point, I should like to ask whether it is the intention of the Government that the members of the secretariat should be civil servants or should be seconded from the Board of Trade; and I raise this matter because my information is that the one point on which the Government were quite decided as long ago as last summer was that the Director of the Consumer Council should be a seconded civil servant, and it seems to me that if we are to have a secretariat of civil servants this will become an appendage of the Board of Trade. On the seventh point, and on a lighter touch—although I do not feel very light-hearted about this—I gather that the Consumer Council is to be housed at Cornwall Terrace, which is the late home of the lamented Horticultural Marketing Council; and that I should not regard as a happy augury.
My Lords, those are the seven points. I do not ask the Minister to agree with them, but because of those points I find myself unable to feel that the Government really mean business on this particular matter. May I come back to what happened earlier this afternoon?—because I have no option but to do this. I am relatively new to this House, and I was quite shocked this afternoon at Question Time and I did not know what to say,

833
because if such an Answer had been given to such a Question in another place this would have been called contempt of the House.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, might I ask, as the noble Baroness and I were in another place together, whether she would think the speech she is now making—and as she knows, I am interested in the points she is putting forward—would be in order on Second Reading of this Bill in another place?
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY:
Yes, they would, because I have based all my remarks—and I hope the noble Lady heard me, because I know she has not made this interruption in a spirit of animosity—on the way the President of the Board of Trade, in the Second Reading debate [col. 35] said that the Consumer Council would be in a position to keep him informed on consumer views on weights and measures, and I am giving my reasons why I think they would not be in that position. I know that the Rules in this House are more lax, but I should be in order in another place. I was careful to give that sentence first.
To come back to this afternoon. It is not easy for a Back Bencher, when confronted with a definite refusal by the Government to make a statement, to decide what to do; and I think the only thing I can do is to come back now—for the benefit of the noble Lady opposite—to the written statement made by the Government on March 26 last concerning the appointment of the Chairman of the Consumer Council. I am back to the question which I had hoped would be settled this afternoon, as to why and how incorrect information was given to the Press—and the most reputable Press. We all know that mistakes can be made. I think it is a good thing if it can be admitted: then everybody can leave the matter and get on. I think this is quite serious.
I asked the Government to-day whether, in view of the further information which had been given to them about this matter, they would make a statement concerning the details given orally to the Press on Tuesday, March 26 last, when the appointment of the Chairman of the Consumer Council was announced. I should be glad if I could have the attention of the Front Bench opposite; it is most tiresome when everybody is
834
muttering. The information I gave to the Government, and which I thought was serious, I would now propose to quote. This information was from the Daily Telegraph of April 3. The heading at the top was "Misleading the Lords." The quotation is as follows:
"The present uneasy relationship between the Government and the newspapers will not he improved by a passage in yesterday's Hansard.
"Lord Derwent, Minister of State, Board of Trade, is stated as saying that, 'contrary to reports which have appeared in the Press', the Government have accepted the Molony Committee's recommendation to pay members of the Consumer Council £500 a year.
"As if to rub it in, he also said there was nothing to give a contrary impression
'in the information made available by the Board of Trade, whether written or oral.'
"Lord Derwent's Ministerial experience is not great but he must surely have known that both the information and the subsequent correction came from the Government. To talk as if the Board of Trade were a separate entity is foolish.
"Perhaps Mr. Macmillan should remind some of his colleagues that, while it is human to err, to mislead is intolerable."
I sent that information to the Government. I tabled a Question, and asked them, in view of this report, whether they would make a further statement. Noble Lords who were present to-day will have heard the answer I got from the Lord President. He is the Lord President and I am a Back Bencher, but I think it was a shocking answer. I think it showed a supreme contempt for the rights of this House. And I have given in the details because I hope that when this is reported we may get a proper statement on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, himself may well have made a mistake last week and not replied very wisely. It would have been much better if he had got up to-day and said so, and then we would have left the matter.
Now I come to the first of the two main aspects of the Bill at which I want to look. The first is a problem of net weight. Here I should like to ask the Minister three questions. I know that the Minister of State is not going to reply, but if the noble Earl who is could help me on these matters I should be glad. (1) Is it necessary to extend the principle of selling pre-packed goods by gross weight—that is, by weight including wrapper? The Government are extending this principle. (2) Is it correct that in the United States

835
and in many other countries, including countries in the Commonwealth, the net weight has to be given? And that the Hodgson Committee recommended this, with only limited exceptions, and that the Institute of Weights and Measures are of the same opinion? (3) Why do the Government take a contrary view on this matter? I hope that the noble Lord has taken these points down, because they are important.
Apart from this indication of net weight, I feel that what we want is a wider power, because even if we get an indication of net weight I do not think it will be enough. It is one aspect of deceptive packaging. What about the excessive size of toothpaste cartons and other cartons to which the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, has referred? And I gather that men are also dissatisfied with the cartons in which shaving cream is often packed. Though stating the net weight would often help, what is really needed is a regulation to prevent sharp tricks such as false size or deceitful design. This has been put to me strongly by consumer bodies, who feel that the Bill is too literal in its limitation to net weight. I should be glad to know what the Minister feels about that.
Logically this brings me to the second of my main aspects—that is, the problem of packaging. Obviously the problem of deceptive packaging will require close attention by the National Consumer Council, but I want to stress to-day that it is little use for the public to be alerted to the tricks of packaging if the Bill contains inadequate powers for dealing with this trouble. Consumer bodies tell me that the present clauses will not be adequate. Some of them go so far as to say that it is something of a job to decide just how deceptive packaging will be controlled under this Bill at all. I would ask the Minister: could we not have a more extended sale by prescribed quantities? The Hodgson Committee recommended this for a long list of goods. I understand that it will still be possible under this Bill for the producer to mark on package goods the weight and price, but to do it in such a way that it will be very difficult for the shopper to find out whether that package costs more than another product. I should be glad to know what the Minister feels about that point.
836
Concerning the actual size of the print in any marking for the shopper the Parliamentary Secretary said on Second Reading that under Clause 21(4) the Board of Trade has power by regulation to prescribe the manner in which this information will be given. Furthermore, as I am sure the Minister of State knows, he said that this power would be used. I can only assure the Minister that it needs to be, because it is practically impossible to see the tiny print on some packages.
There is one particular clause about which very strong representations have been made to me—I am sure that the Minister knows which it is: Clause 33. I should like to say something about this. The point has been put to me that in Clause 31(1)(a) the price as well as the quantity should be made known to the buyer, and so should the price per lb. These are important, and those of us who take an interest in consumer affairs think that they should be clearly written into the Bill. Subsection (3) of this clause is entirely unsatisfactory. As the noble Lord knows, before the Report stage in another place it meant that such things as poultry, fish, cheese, fresh fruit and vegetables were included; but on Report stage poultry, fish and cheese were removed, and we are now left with fresh fruit and vegetables. I do not think that many people realise how stupid this is.
We are now left with the position that fresh fruit and vegetables may be sold by price without any reference to weight, provided that the shop keeper puts up a notice stating that a scale is available for the customer's use. Although the notice may be readily seen, I assure your Lordships—and I do my own shopping—that probably it will be seldom read. Do your Lordships visualise the customer reading, finding out where the scales are and then weighing the goods? I would ask the Minister whether he thinks that in a busy shop that is a likely proposition. In fact, I go further and say that it is a negation of consumer protection. It is a long way from sale by weight, and a longer way still, and the inadequacy all the greater, when it is operated, as it will be, side by side with a prescription that the same goods, if not pre-packed, must be sold by weight.

837
I cannot see why fresh fruit and vegetables must be left out. It seems to me obvious that our marketing methods are too inefficient to provide an alternative. At least, that is the only reason I can think of. I would ask why inefficiency should be covered up in this way. Why cannot fresh fruit and vegetables, along with any other commodity, be sold by net weight? I would point out to the Minister that the suggestion was made in another place—and I agree with it—that if we said this had to be done, and gave the marketing authorities a specific period of time to arrange it, then they would find an answer. I believe that to-day the up-to-date horticultural marketing people would be only too glad to find an answer to this problem.
I now come to something which I think is important, and on which I wish to declare a personal interest. On Report stage in another place, an Amendment was discussed to Clause 48, to which my noble friend Lord Stonham has already referred, giving inspectors of weights and measures power, for the purposes of carrying out their duties under this Bill, to stop at all reasonable times a vehicle carrying solid fuel for sale or delivery to a purchaser. This suggestion kept cropping up in another place through all the stages. It was turned down by the Government as recently as March 25 last, on the Report stage. A great deal of comment and criticism has come my way on this matter. It has come because of a general interest in the consumer and because of the interest I now wish to declare as Chairman of the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council. That Coal Consumers' Council comprises representatives of consumers of solid fuel, of distributors (both private and co-operative traders) of the National Coal Board and of the Gas Council. Among the consumer representatives are included a chief inspector of weights and measures and a number of local authority representatives, several of whom are in close touch with their authorities' weights and measures inspectorates.
In this Council nobody is in favour of the course of action that the Government, up to now anyway, have said they intend to pursue—namely, to withdraw from inspectors the right, which they have had in the past, to stop vehicles. I think it may help the Minister—because I am hoping he may be able to look
838
sympathetically on this when the Bill goes to the Committee stage—if I were to say that one qualification felt was that it was certainly desirable that an inspector who is authorised to stop coal lorries in this way should have some means of identifying himself readily to the driver of a lorry travelling at normal speed.
The opinion of my Council, speaking generally over all this period of time, is that lorries should be compelled to stop for a duly authorised and clearly identified inspector, and I would put forward to the noble Lord two possible means of achieving this. As he knows, there is the procedure authorised by Section 224 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, under which a person authorised by a highway authority (not necessarily a policeman in uniform) may stop a vehicle for the purpose of having it weighed. For this purpose he uses a sign, authorised by the Ministry of Transport, which measures 20 inches by 30 inches and has on it the word "Stop" in red letters, four and a half inches high. These powers, as the Minister knows, are given for the purpose of checking overloaded vehicles rather than short-weight deliveries, but this does not affect the principle. Another method that is used, and which I thought might perhaps be useful to the Minister as background, relies on the fact that a weights and measures department's patrol vans, which may for example carry the crest of the local authority, are well known by appearance to coal dealers and their employees. Full regard has from time to time been paid by myself and by other people to the arguments put forward by the Government for the refusal of the Amendment put forward in another place. I hope, in view of what others and myself have said to-day—and perhaps I may call in aid the weight of opinion represented by a body like the Domestic Coal Consumers Council—that the Government will feel able to look again at this Amendment when we come to the Committee stage.
Now, my Lords, I want to conclude on one simple mundane matter, but it is one which affects millions of ordinary shoppers. I wonder if the Minister could tell me what is meant by "countable produce" in the context in which it is used in paragraph 3(1)(d), Part VII of Schedule 4, on page 73 of the Bill looked at this very hard, and I could

839
not make head or tail of it. Is it implied that when shoppers buy, to take a few examples, carrots, leeks, onions, greengages or tomatoes, they buy these by asking for so many?—because I have never been in a shop and asked for so many carrots, leeks or onions. This is a perfectly honest query. If it does not mean that you go in and buy these goods by number, then what does it mean? It is this sort of phraseology that brings us all into contempt by ordinary people outside who cannot make head or tail of it. While it is a small point, I should be glad if the noble Lord could help me by saying what is meant by "countable produce". I am glad that we have this Bill; I hope that it will be improved in Committee and I thank your Lordships for your patience.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I intervene for a brief moment to apologise to your Lordships for having made a misleading statement in the debate last Thursday in the House, when I said that two previous Weights and Measures Bills in this Parliament had been debated in your Lordships' House. In fact, only one Weights and Measures Bill has been debated in your Lordships' House, and I apologise for having made that misleading statement.
LORD DERWENT: It seemed like two!
4.46 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate this afternoon, and I can assure your Lordships that everything that has been said will be studied with great care. It was particularly pleasing to hear the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, give such a welcome to this Bill, because it is a Bill which is going to tidy up, as it were, loose legislation and consolidate the situation for the future. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said that he was delighted to see a different team of people on the Front Bench, and would have great pleasure in quoting us against ourselves. If I may recollect my own contribution to the last Bill, which was before your Lordships two years ago, it consisted mainly of sitting on the Benches in wonder and amazement at the intelligence and wit of
840
noble Lords in understanding such a complicated Bill, and, indeed, thanking various forms of goodness that I was not involved in it. It is, therefore, slightly odd to feel the mantle of responsibility, even if it is only diminished responsibility, perching itself rather warily on my shoulders at the present time.
This is a Bill which will have a great deal of effect. After all, one experiences the effects of weights and measures in various forms almost every time one goes into a shop and every time one has anything to do with any form of business. But it is not necessarily appreciated how legislation comes about which assures the consumers' protection. I would state, as briefly as I can, that the Bill as it is relies totally on dealing with quantity, and in no respects does it deal (I think I am right in stating this categorically) with quality. There are virtually three steps in this legislation. The first is to provide a common language of weights and measures; the second is to ensure that that language is used by traders—and that is, of course, done by seeing that they have accurate and efficient equipment; and the third is to ensure that this information is passed on to the general public, so that the public themselves know exactly what they are buying. It also consolidates past legislation. I would emphasise again that it does not, as your Lordships know, deal with quality, because that was dealt with by the Molony Committee, and must be subject to separate legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has welcomed this Bill, and great note will be taken of all he has said. I would answer at least one point that he raised. He was rather worried about the powers of inspectors to stop vehicles—a point also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry. It has been suggested that the Bill should give to weights and measures inspectors powers to stop lorries. These powers to stop vehicles are carefully circumscribed by road traffic legislation for reasons of road safety, particularly from the point of view of security from theft of vehicles and of loads, and also from the point of view of operating efficiency, because clearly it is going to involve a certain disruption of traffic if lorries are periodically stopped and removed from the roads to be weighed. The Road Traffic

841
Act, 1960, gives a general power to stop vehicles on the highway only to a police constable in uniform. This has been done for good reasons, apart from the dangers of hi-jacking which, unfortunately, seem to be rather on the increase. It is a difficult job to control traffic on the roads to-day, and those are the reasons why it has been considered up to now that it would be better not to involve weights and measures inspectors in the stopping of lorries and removing them to be weighed.
LORD STONHAM: Will the noble Earl allow me to interrupt? What we are objecting to is the fact that the Bill removes those powers to stop lorries which weights and measures inspectors now possess as civilians. It has been built up by legislation that they have that power, and the Bill will remove it. That is what we are objecting to.
EARL FERRERS: That is perfectly true, and if the noble Lord feels strongly on that lie can put down an Amendment later on. We are particularly grateful to the noble Lord for telling us exactly—or giving us an indication—of the lines which he will pursue on amending this Bill, because, obviously, it will assist us considerably.
Both he and the noble Baroness were concerned about this business of fruit and vegetable weighing and pre-packing. Certain goods, and particularly fruit and vegetables, are subject to loss of weight by evaporation. If they were to be marked with their net weight when pre-packed the only way of ensuring that this weight was accurate at the moment of sale would be to re-weigh the article. That is obviously not a sensible thing to do: it would be inconvenient, and very expensive. The alternative is to allow the goods to be unmarked, but to require that their gross weight be made known at the moment of sale. All retailers can then be required to make known the weight of these goods in the conventional manner, by passing them over a scale at the time of sale. That would be done in the customer's presence, and it would obviously involve a certain amount of inconvenience. But at least the customer would be able to know the weight at the moment he purchased the goods, as opposed to knowing the weight when they were pre-packed, from which a
842
certain amount may have been lost due to evaporation.
To allow for the special position of the self-service store, while ensuring that the customer has the weight of these things at the moment of sale, subsection (3) of Clause 33 gives power by order to provide that a requirement to make the weight known shall be satisfied if the retailer provides special weighing equipment which customers themselves may use. The Bill applies this provision to certain fresh fruit and vegetables in Part VII of Schedule 4 as if the Board have made such an order. These are the only goods to which the provision is applied. If the Board at some future date should consider it necessary to extend the provision to other goods, they will be enabled to do so by an Order requiring an Affirmative Resolution. While on this point of fruit and vegetables, the noble Lady raised a point with regard to the procedure (I think she said) in the United States. There, soft fruit may be sold by capacity as an alternative to net weight. We will go into the difficulties of selling soft fruit by net weight when the Committee stage of the Bill comes about. That is the only information I can give the noble Lady at the moment with regard to the weighing of vegetables or fruit in the United States.
The noble Baroness also made the point, as I believe did the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, about wrapper allowances. There is no doubt that net weight over as wide a field as possible is a desirable objective, but the Bill requires this over a wide range of goods. There are, of course, certain goods for which it is not practicable to demand that the net weight should be given. The Schedule allows gross weight in these cases for two main reasons: first, some goods are moist or sticky, and when they are sold loose over the counter it is hygienic and necessary that they should be weighed on some kind of wrapper—for instance, a piece of greaseproof paper. Examples of this are well known to your Lordships, such as meat, ham, butter, lard and so forth. Soft fruit, such as raspberries and strawberries, if sold loose, also need to be put in a bag or other container when weighed to prevent the scales from getting sticky. Greaseproof paper or a like container is in these cases allowed to be included in the weight,

843
because many shops selling these goods loose do not have weighing equipment which enables them to calculate the net weight accurately in those circumstances.
The second reason is that for some pre-packed goods there is again a serious problem of evaporation. Goods such as fresh vegetables and soft fruit, sausages, poultry and cheese, may lose weight rapidly and unpredictably by evaporation. More and more of these goods are being sold pre-packed; but unless or until the evaporation problem is solved—for instance, by new techniques in storage, or by the use of air-tight packing—goods will be liable to weight losses between packaging and sale and must, therefore, be weighed gross, including their container, at the time of sale.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, for his speech in which he gave the House the advantage of his careful study of cereals, fruit and household powders. All those points will be looked at with great care before the next stage of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, did not give the Bill quite the welcome that other noble Lords have given it. But she thought it entrenched existing trade practices—those were not quite her words, but that was the impression she gave. I should not have thought that that was a fair criticism of the Bill. She thought that possibly it was about twelve years old, as it relied on the Report of a past Committee. In fact, although in the main it may have relied on the Hodgson Committee, it has been the result of a Bill which came in front of your Lordships about two years ago, and has therefore been brought considerably more up to date. Of course, the object behind it is to protect the consumer while at the same time being fair to the trader and giving him certain rights of self-defence.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, may I just say something, for I know that the noble Earl wishes to be fair? What I said was, not that the Bill was twelve or thirteen years out of date but that I thought that some of the objections put forward by the Government to many of the Amendments put forward by the Opposition were some twelve or thirteen years out of date and were based on objections that were made at that time.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I see; but I am still working out where the objections are coming from or going to. But I am very grateful at least to the noble Lady for pointing that out, because she has cleared up a misapprehension in my mind. She did, however, take this opportunity of making a very violent—I should say, strong—statement about "her" Consumer Council, but I am quite convinced that she will not expect me to be drawn in on that.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I am sorry to keep getting up, but I should like to get this right. It was merely a statement, put forward very calmly, as to the various reasons for which I thought the Government did not really mean business with the Council, and it was put forward in a perfectly amicable spirit.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I did not mean to suggest that it was not amicably delivered, but the noble Lady is very persistent and does it with great charm. While she was making her speech she did rather remind me of a terrier with a rat in its mouth trying to extinguish its life; she did it so persistently. I should not like her to misconstrue that. I do not by any means wish to imply that the noble Lady is like a terrier, or the Government like a rat, but it was mainly the means of delivery which bore a similarity.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, does the noble Earl's statement mean that he now withdraws entirely the word "violent" and substitutes the word "persistent", which is surely a fairer word to use in connection with my noble friend's statement?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, that is perfectly true, but I thought that I had in fact removed the word "violent" after I said it because I did not quite mean to imply that. The noble Lady made a number of points, which I hope I have been able to answer in a certain degree with those made by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, opposite, and we shall take very careful note of all that has been said in the Second Reading debate. It is very difficult, as the noble Lady herself said, to take a Second Reading debate like this without involving oneself in points of detail.

845
We are grateful to the noble Lords who have taken part, and grateful for the welcome given to the Bill for the Opposition by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

OFFICES, SHOPS AND RAILWAY PREMISES BILL
5.4 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AIREDALE in the Chair.]
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, after Clause 41 to insert the following new clause:
Special provisions as to London
".—(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section any premises to which section 29 of this Act applies which form part of a building from all parts of which means of escape in case of fire have been provided in accordance with the requirements of Part V of the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act, 1939, and are maintained, shall be entitled to receive a fire certificate under the said section 29 and pending the receipt of the certificate no offence shall be deemed to be committed by reason of the employment of persons in any such premises in contravention of that section.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to any premises if since the means of escape were provided any action has been taken of which notice would, if a certificate under the said section 29 had been granted, have been required to be given to the appropriate authority under subsection (3) of section 30 of this Act."
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friends, I beg to move this Amendment. I would remind the Committee that we are still dealing with the question of fire provisions, particularly in regard to the certificates. I would also remind the Committee that Clause 29 lays it down that it shall be unlawful after the passing of this Act for the employment of certain people, either on the ground floor or upstairs, if inflammable materials are stored in the building. The procedure for granting these certificates is similar to that already in force under the Factories Act, 1961. That Act, however, makes special provision, in Section 44, for premises in respect of London.
The London County Council have already dealt with the means of escape from fire under the powers contained in Part V of the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act, 1939. In regard to other parts of the country, in particular, Scotland, other provisions are already in force and local authorities are inspecting. In fact, it may be said that in the case of London the standards required under various enactments are perhaps higher than those provided for in this Bill.
Since 1905, as I understand it, the London County Council have given approval for all new buildings, and therefore one can reasonably say that the vast majority of office or shop buildings in the London County Council area conform to the specification and are well within the requirements of this Bill. The purpose of this Amendment is really simplification. The whole burden of the Government case on the earlier stage of this Bill is that we should not do anything that will make the burden of the local authorities heavier than it will be. In this particular case we are endeavouring to lighten the position. We recognise that in the case of the London County Council area the provisions of this Bill are already in fact taking place.
If the Bill goes forward, a new certificate will, as I understand the position, be issued. I would put to the Government that, in the cause of simplicity, the buildings within the London County Council area should be exempted from the necessity of having a fire certificate issued under this Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, will recognise that I am one of the last to wish to see any exemptions from the provisions of this Bill. Yet I believe there is a case, in view of the fact that all these buildings are up to standard, and are carefully inspected and controlled by the London County Council, for relieving the authority of the duty of carrying out a fresh survey and a fresh issue of certificates. May I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, that if this Amendment were accepted it would considerably ease the position of the employers or the occupiers of these buildings? It would relieve them of the necessity of obtaining what is, in fact, a new fire certificate in place of the one which they have already been granted on satisfying the stringent requirements of the authority; and there does not appear to be any point in the

847
duplication of this requirement. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 41 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Shepherd.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (LORD NEWTON): I am not at the moment convinced that it would be practicable in this Bill to follow the procedure of the Factories Act, but I do not want this afternoon to recommend to your Lordships that you should not agree to this Amendment. I should like to have a little more time to consider the noble Lord's Amendment, and perhaps he would be good enough to withdraw it now and put it down again on Report.
LORD SHEPHERD: I must respond to that suggestion because I think it is very helpful. I know the noble Lord does not mean any more than he has said, but at least he has not turned me down flat, which has been most of my experience through the long period of this Bill, although the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, shakes his head. Of course it depends on the way one looks at some of the Government's replies. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42 [Provisions with respect to buildings in single ownership]:
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON)THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON) moved, after subsection (7), to insert:
"(8) Section 22 of this Act (except so far as relating to operations or processes) shall, with the substitution, for references to the occupier of the premises, of references to the owner of the building, have effect in relation to a common part of a building to which this section applies, and to machinery, plant, equipment and appliances used in such a part, as it has effect in relation to premises to which this Act applies, and to machinery, plant, equipment and appliances used in such premises.
(9) Where the occupier of premises comprised in a building in England or Wales to which this section applies is the defendant to a complaint made under section 22 of this Act with respect to the premises on the ground specified in subsection (1)(a) or (b) of that section a copy of the summons issued in consequence of the making of the complaint
848
together with a notice stating that he will be entitled to appear at the hearing of the complaint shall he served on the owner of the building in like manner as a summons falling to be served on him is required to be served and he shall, if he appears at the hearing, be deemed to be a defendant to the complaint; and the powers of the court under section 55(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 shall be deemed to include power, whatever adjudication the court makes on the complaint, to order any of the parties to pay the whole or part of the costs of either or both of the others.
(10) Where the occupier of premises comprised in a building in Scotland to which this section applies is a defender in a summary application made under section 22 of this Act in respect of the premises on the ground specified in subsection (1)(a) or (b) of that section, a copy of the application together with notice of the place, date and time fixed for the hearing of it shall he served on the owner of the building and he shall thereafter be a party to the proceedings."
The noble Lord said: The object of the new subsection (8) on the Marshalled List is to enable the machinery of making a complaint under Clause 22 (that is, dangerous conditions and practices) to be applied to the common parts of buildings to which Clause 42 applies. In other words, this Amendment would enable an authority to make a complaint to a magistrates' court about the dangerous conditions of, for example, lifts or stairways, or a boiler in the common parts; and references to the owner of the building are substituted for references to the occupier of the premises. The subsection limits the procedure to paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 22(1), since the operations and processes mentioned in paragraph (c) are carried on only in the premises and not in the common parts.
The new subsection (9) provides that when a complaint is made by an enforcing authority under Clause 22 against the occupier of premises in a building to which Clause 42 applies a copy of the summons shall be served on the owner of the building, who may, if he wishes, appear at the court hearing. I think it is obvious that an owner will often have an interest in the matter, and it is only reasonable that he should be given the opportunity to appear at the hearing if he so wishes. This Amendment meets a suggestion made in the course of debate in another place. The new subsection (10) is merely an adaptation for Scotland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 9, at end insert the said subsections.—(Lord Carrington.)
LORD CHAMPION: I think these new subsections are wholly welcome to us. The only question I would ask is: do they, where there are staircases, and so on, in common use, place the responsibility clearly on the owner, without any question of divided responsibility between him and the various occupiers?
LORD CARRINGTON: As I understand it the noble Lord is perfectly right. The onus in respect of the common parts of the premises is placed on the owner and not on the various occupiers.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NEWTON: There is an Amendment identical to No. 68, which is No. 72, and perhaps it would be convenient for me to refer to them both together. Subsection (6) of Clause 29 requires a fire certificate issued with respect to any premises to be kept in the premises so long as it is in force. In the case of buildings to which Clause 42 or Clause 43 applies, however, the fire certificate is sent to the owner of the building or the owner of the part of the building in which the premises are situated. Subsection (9) of Clause 42 and subsection (7) of Clause 43 provide that a copy of the fire certificate shall be sent to the occupier of the premises concerned. It is therefore necessary to adapt the requirements in Clause 29(6) to provide that the copy of the fire certificate shall be kept in premises comprised in buildings to which Clauses 42 and 43 apply. Generally speaking, the fire certificate itself will be kept by owners in their own offices, which may often be at a distance from the building which inspectors will be visiting for the purpose of enforcing the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 21, at end insert ("and section 29(6) of this Act shall apply to the copy instead of to the certificate").—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43 [Provisions with respect to buildings plurally owned]:
LORD CARRINGTON: This is an exactly similar Amendment to the one I have just moved, except that it relates
850
to Clause 43 and not to Clause 42. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 36, at end insert—
"(6) Section 22 of this Act (except so far as relating to operations or processes) shall, with the substitution, for references to the occupier of the premises, of references to the persons who, between them, own the building, have effect in relation to a common part of a building to which this section applies, and to machinery, plant, equipment and appliances used in such a part, as it has effect in relation to premises to which this Act applies, and to machinery, plant, equipment and appliances used in such premises.
(7) Where the occupier of premises comprised in a building in England or Wales to which this section applies is the defendant to a complaint made under section 22 of this Act with respect to the premises on the ground specified in subsection (1) (a) or (b) of that section a copy of the summons issued in consequence of the making of the complaint together with a notice stating that he will be entitled to appear at the hearing of the complaint shall be served on each of the persons who between them own the building in like manner as a summons falling to be served on him is required to be served and he shall, if he appears at the hearing be deemed to be a defendant to the complaint; and the powers of the court under section 55 (1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 shall he deemed to include power, whatever adjudication the court makes on the complaint, to order any of the parties to pay the whole or part of the costs of all or any of the others.
(8) Where the occupier of premises comprised in a building in Scotland to which this section applies is a defender in a summary application made under section 22 of this Act in respect of the premises on the ground specified in subsection (1) (a) or (b) of that section, a copy of the application together with notice of the place, date and time fixed for the hearing of it shall be served on each of the persons who between them own the building and they shall thereafter be parties to the proceedings."—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NEWTON: This is a paving Amendment for the next one, which perhaps I might discuss at the same time. Subsection (5) of Clause 29 states that a fire certificate issued with respect to any premises shall be sent to the occupier of the premises. Subsection (6) of Clause 43 provides that in the case of plurally owned buildings references to the occupier of the premises in the provisions relating to fire precautions shall be replaced by references to the persons who between them own the building. These two Amendments provide that in the case of buildings to which Clause 43 applies the fire certificate shall be sent to the person

851
who owns the part of the building where the premises are situated. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 39, after ("precautions") insert ("(a)").—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NEWTON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 41, leave out from ("premises") to end of line 43 and insert—
("(b) for references to the occupier of the premises (except the reference in section 29(5)) there shall be substituted references to the persons who between them own the building; and
(c) for the reference in the said section 29(5) to the occupier of the premises there shall be substituted a reference to the person who owns the part of the building of which the premises consist.")—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NEWTON: This is consequential on Amendment No. 68. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 48, at end insert ("and section 29(6) of this Act shall apply to the copy instead of to the certificate ").—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CARRINGTON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 38, leave out ("section") and insert ("subsection").—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45:
Power of the Minister to grant exemptions from certain requirements of the Act
45.—(1) The Minister may by order exempt premises of any class from all or any of the requirements imposed by the following provisions of this Act, namely, section 5(2) and sections 6, 9 and 10, in cases where, in his opinion, it would, by reason of special circumstances, be unreasonable to require compliance with the requirements or requirement from which exemption is granted.
(2) An exemption under this section may be granted unconditionally or subject to conditions and without limit of time or for a specified period.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "without limit
852
of time or" and to insert "shall be granted". The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move this Amendment, and with the Committee's permission I will also speak on Amendment No. 76, since they go together. We now enter the really important part of the Bill, for it is clearly recognised that the effect of this Bill will largely depend not only on the enforcement of the provisions by the Minister or the local authority but also on the possible exemptions. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Newton, who on Thursday said it was not the intention of the Minister to grant exemptions on a wide basis; that they would be restricted to those premises where in fact it was practically impossible for these provisions to apply.
I would refer the Committee to the fact that in subsection (1) the Minister will have power to
"exempt premises of any class from all or any of the requirements."
I freely accept that, perhaps in the initial period, a fairly wide latitude may have to be given to the Minister in regard to exemptions, although we have had the assurances of the Minister that he will be reluctant to grant these exemptions. I would refer the Committee to subsection (2), which reads:
"An exemption under this section may be granted unconditionally or subject to conditions."
I do not at the moment raise any objections to that; I can see the difficulty of the Minister in granting the exemption. He may or he may not in fact be able to lay down conditions. I hope that he will, because if exemptions are given the Minister could say, "All right, you cannot comply; but there is something that you can do to improve the working conditions of the people."
Now I come to the real issue—namely, the words:
"and without limit of time or for a specified period."
Obviously, in regard to a specified time I have no quarrel; I fully accept that the Minister may make these exemptions conditionally or unconditionally, and certainly for a specified time. But my friends and I strongly object to the fact that in this Bill at this early stage the Minister is able to grant exemption without limit of time. This is extremely wide ranging. It might well mean that the

853
Minister could exempt a whole range of office or shop premises for ever. I think that is utterly wrong, and I hope that the Government will agree with me.
Perhaps that is not what they mean by the words "without limit of time"; but a reading of the Bill gives the impression that an exemption could be given indefinitely without any regard to the development of conditions. Therefore, in the Amendment we suggest that instead of the words "without limit of time" the Minister, in granting exemptions, should not, at this early stage of the Bill, and perhaps when a lot of lessons will have to be learned, grant these wide-ranging exemptions to all classes of premises for longer than two years. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 4, leave out ("without limit of time or") and insert ("shall be granted").—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD DENHAM: The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has argued that exemptions should not be granted indefinitely to any class of premises, and if the Amendments we are discussing were accepted the Minister's power to grant exemptions to classes of premises would be limited to a maximum of two years at the end of which he would have to review the case and issue a further exemption order if one were justified. It might be as well to re-state the purpose of the powers in Clause 45. Where there is clearly a particular type of premises where any of the specified requirements (minimum space, temperature, sanitary conveniences, and washing facilities) appear unreasonable, the advantages of exempting such premises as a class are that the occupiers of that class of premises know where they stand, equitable and uniform treatment is secured, and the time of enforcing authorities is saved by cutting out the issue and review of individual exemption certificates.
As to the argument that a period of two years is in any case long enough for any class of premises to put their affairs in order, I invite the Committee to consider the case of offices and shops in hamlets with no water main. The provision of the main is quite outside the power of the villagers. The Minister might make an order exempting all such premises from the running water provision where mains water is not available
854
in the immediate locality. I see no harm in making such an order indefinite; if mains water is run into a particular hamlet, the order will by definition cease to apply to offices or shops in the locality. I have no doubt that there will be other examples where this power might be applied, although it will be used sparingly. Moreover, if an order is made which is not "self-cancelling" as in the example I have just given, I can give the assurance that my right honourable friend will keep it under review, but I do not think it is sensible to require such orders to be re-issued every two years in all cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was worried lest exemptions should be granted under this clause in cases where it would probably be reasonable to give exemption only for a short period. There are a number of cases where to require compliance with the provisions specified in this clause might be unreasonable—in regard to certain classes of kiosk it would be impossible to do this. But I am prepared to give the noble Lord an undertaking that exemptions will not be given for an indefinite period in cases where it would be reasonable to require compliance. In view of this rather limited assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD CHAMPION: May I ask the noble Lord what machinery will be used for keeping this matter under continuous review by the Minister? So often that phrase is used, and so often it means precisely nothing. I wondered whether there would be some machinery set up which would ensure a periodic review of cases of this sort. If so, I should have thought that the noble Lord has to some extent met my noble friend's representations in this matter.
LORD DENHAM: I am afraid I cannot help the noble Lord, Lord Champion, over this point at the moment. It is the intention that these cases will be kept under review, but details of the precise machinery are not available at the moment. I will let the noble Lord know.
LORD SHEPHERD: I think we are going to be in some difficulty because we have these two clauses. Obviously, I cannot do anything in regard to Clause 46 at the moment, but I can speak about it, because the Minister, when he replied to me, dealt with the position of shops

855
within a hamlet—the difficulty that there may be no water main, and therefore it would be too much to expect that within a period of two years the position would be rectified. I frankly did not envisage exemption of that type of case by the Minister. This was really a case of premises and not of a class. When one talks of "class" one thinks perhaps of hairdressing establishments or butchers' shops; one does not necessarily think of a particular butcher's shop or a particular hairdresser's shop. That becomes a premises. When one is considering exemptions for a type of premises that has no water supply, I cannot see how the Minister will be in a position to consider granting an exemption, above all else at the end of a period, or to say whether it is reasonable that the premises should now comply with the regulations. I should have thought that when one was dealing with the hamlet the exemptions would be the concern of the local authority intimately concerned with the problem.
I have carefully considered Clause 45 and cannot think of any type of classification where the Minister would give exemptions. It seems to me very difficult to think of any type of business of which one could say that overwhelmingly throughout the country, "This classification of office or shop is excluded from the provisions of the Bill". The noble Lord, Lord Denham, said that a shop in a hamlet with no water mains falls within a particular classification and that it should not have to provide sanitary or washing facilities, but I believe that the granting of that type of exemption should fall on the local authority rather than on the Minister, because the local authority would be aware of any changes which take place.
I come back to the point that where an exemption is granted without limit of time, unless the inspectors are very active, particularly those in the Central Inspectorate, it may be that the provisions of this Bill could well be complied with but people will be reluctant to do anything about it, and I do not believe that the Minister would be aware of the changed circumstances. The noble Lord, between now and the next stage—and I will not press this Amendment now—might tell us what the Minister means by "class of premises", because it should not go out
856
from this Committee that that classification means hamlets or hamlets of a type. If premises in these hamlets or villages are to be exempted because water does not at the moment exist, then it should be the responsibility of the local authority to grant the exemption and to cancel such exemption when water is supplied, and should not be within the province of the Minister.
LORD DENHAM: The sort of exemptions about which I have been talking can be dealt with either as a general class by the Minister, under Clause 45, or, as regards a particular place, under Clause 46 by the local authority. With regard to the use of the words "class of premises", I should like to draw the noble Lord's attention to Clause 88(5) which says:
"The definition of a class of premises or persons for the purposes of any regulations or order under this Act may be framed by reference to any circumstances whatever."
LORD SHEPHERD: I may be dim—I do not know—but the last reference the noble Lord has given does not help me. However, perhaps between now and the next stage this point may be considered. I would emphasise, however, that where possible the Minister should not be the main arbiter as to what exemptions are given, and that the local authority, with full knowledge of affairs locally, should decide whether or not it is within the ability of the occupier to comply with the conditions. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Power of authorities who enforce Act to grant exemptions from certain requirements thereof]:
LORD CARRINGTON: I beg to move Amendment No. 77, which is only to make way for the longer Amendment No. 80. The purpose of these two Amendments is as follows. Clause 46 deals with the power of enforcing authorities to grants exemptions to individual premises from certain requirements, and subsection (5) sets out part of the procedure for making an application for an exemption certificate. The subsection states that the application should be made on a prescribed form but does not specify to whom the form should be sent.

857
The purpose of these Amendments is quite simply to identify the appropriate authority.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 44, after ("made") insert ("to the appropriate authority").—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.37 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved to add to subsection (8):
"and a copy of that certificate shall be sent to the Minister's officer appointed under section 57 of this Act."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is relatively simple, and deals with those exemptions that may be granted by the local authority. In the other place the Government conceded the very valuable point in Clause 57 that there should be a Central Inspectorate which would have certain duties laid down by regulations. Its main purpose is to create uniformity in the application of this Bill throughout the country—a very important matter when one considers that there will be 1,700 authorities involved.
The purpose of this Amendment is to explore the way in which the Government propose that the inspectors to be appointed by the local authority shall pass information to the Central Inspectorate. At the moment we have to depend upon the issue of a regulation. I put forward the suggestion that when a local authority grants an exemption under this Bill a copy of the certificate should be sent to the Minister's officer—that is to say, the person appointed under Clause 57—for his information. From the information flowing into the Central Inspectorate one will be able to see broadly how the various local authorities are dealing with the problem and the extent to which exemptions are being granted, and in time a fairly general pattern will emerge as to how the various local authorities are administering this Bill, particularly Clause 46.
I appreciate that this may involve both local authorities and the Central Inspectorate in a considerable amount of detail and paper work, which is something I personally should like to avoid. But I hope the Minister will concede that when local authorities grant exemptions under this Bill they should inform the Central Inspectorate either as a certificate is
858
issued or at stated periods, perhaps giving an analysis of what has been granted and the reasons for the granting of exemptions. As I have said, the purpose of this Amendment is merely to explore the type of machinery which the Government propose to adopt, and to see that the Central Inspectorate will be able to carry out their duties of bringing about uniformity throughout the country.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 20, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD NEWTON: I should like to repeat something which I said in this connection during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. When I was referring to the powers given to the Minister under Clause 57, I said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 247 (No. 56), col. 994]:
"While these powers should give the Minister all that he needs to ensure that he Bill is enforced in a satisfactory and uniform manner, they will not be used to make routine inspections of local authority arrangements."
I went on a little later to add:
"I should make clear that he"—
that is, the Minister of Labour—
"has no intention of exercising his powers in a way which would tend to undermine the independence and responsibility of local authorities."
In other words, it is not intended to use the Central Inspectorate as a running check on administration by local authorities. I really do not think that any useful purpose would be served by having copies of exemption certificates sent to the nearest inspector appointed under Clause 57.
However, under Clause 59 annual reports have to be made to my right honourable friend by local and fire authorities, containing such information as he may require. This will include information about the number of exemptions granted from particular provisions of the Bill, and it will be possible by this means to keep a check on the way in which exemption powers are being exercised in different parts of the country. I think that should meet substantially, if not in total, one of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has in mind. I should also just mention that Clause 46(6) ensures that employees will be informed of applications for exemptions, and will have the oppor-

859
tunity of expressing their views to the relevant authority. So I hope I have convinced the noble Lord that in fact his Amendment is not necessary to achieve what I think he really has in mind.
LORD SHEPHERD: I must say that I am not convinced in this matter, and I would suggest to the noble Lord that he reads the requirements of Clause 57. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, in reply to me, said that it was never the intention of the Minister—that is, the Minister of Labour—to dictate to local authorities the manner in which they carry out the provisions of this Bill, particularly with regard to exemptions. But if the Minister would be good enough to read Clause 57(1)(a) he will see that here is a clear case where the Minister is in fact going to lay down regulations as to
"the manner of the discharge of those duties and of the exercise of the powers conferred by this Act on inspectors appointed by local authorities."
Here is a case where the Minister, by regulation, is going to tell the local authority inspector how he should proceed with his duties.
I welcome this particular clause and I shall come back to it on a later Amendment. But it is no use for the Minister to come here this evening to say that the Government do not propose to set up an organisation whereby the Central Inspectorate will be aware of the general proceedings by the local authorities under this Bill, such as on the granting of exemptions, merely on the ground that the Minister does not wish to interfere—I shall not use the word "dictate" because that is not what I mean—or to use initiative to see that there is this general uniformity. It is no use for the Minister to use that as a reason for not accepting the probe that I was making, when in Clause 57 the Minister is taking powers to tell an inspector appointed by a local authority about the manner in which he shall carry out his duties.
If the Minister has these powers to make regulations with regard to the inspectors, I should have thought it was quite right, particularly at this early stage of this Bill, and particularly if the Government wish to have uniformity, that all the time essential information should
860
be leaving the local authority to go to the Central Inspectorate. It is only then, surely, that the Minister will be aware of the proceedings under this Bill. I think it would really be unsatisfactory if, after this Bill had come into force, things could be going wrong, there could be lack of uniformity, that there could be some areas which were applying this measure fully in the interests of the worker and other local authorities which were doing nothing about it, and yet the Minister should wait, and Parliament should wait, for at least eighteen months before they were aware of the proceedings.
I should have thought that what mattered in the enforcement of the provisions of this Bill was not only the activities of the local authority and their inspectors, but the close working between them and the Central Inspectorate. To me, this is of cardinal importance. There should be a form of partnership between the Government's inspectors and those of the local authority. Both will have a lot of information to give each other. I do beg the Government, if they cannot make a gesture this evening, at least to consider this particular point carefully. It is made for no other purpose than to try to make this Bill effective as quickly as possible over the whole of the country.
LORD NEWTON: Of course, my right honourable friend will rely so far as possible on informal guidance. The noble Lord will note that power to make regulations is permissive. Clause 57(1)(a) says that the Minister may make regulations, et cetera. If regulations are used, I think they will deal with general matters and not with the detailed supervision of individual exemption certificates. But quite apart from that, I think it is one thing to give a general direction as to how a certain duty should be carried out; it is another to come along and snoop, and see whether what you have said is being observed. That is where I think we want to draw a line of distinction. As I say, it is not proposed to suggest that local authorities will not carry out their obligations, nor to employ a Central Inspectorate to keep a running check on them. What the Central Inspectorate will do will be to discover how, over the country as a whole, the various powers of the local authorities are being exercised, and to treat co-ordination in that way.
LORD CHAMPION: It seems to me that what we must do is to ensure a reasonable uniformity as between one local authority and another. As a magistrate, one is always running into difficulties because one's court is doing something a little differently from some other courts a little distance away. You fine £5 for exceeding the speed limit, while in another area the fine is £2. That always seems to me to bring magistrates' courts into some little disrepute. If in this matter of granting exemptions you have one exemption, or form of exemption, granted by one local authority and the adjoining local authority does not grant such an exemption, you will have this difficulty as between one local authority and another.
I am sure that my noble friend is quite right in trying to secure that, somehow, reports will be made which will enable the Minister perhaps to bring pressure upon local authorities to try to secure a reasonable degree of uniformity. If that can be done under the Bill as it stands we shall be perfectly happy; but, if not, we hope that between now and the Report stage the Minister will look at this matter and put down suitable Amendments. Certainly I regard this as having some importance, because of this difficulty that one runs into in the courts.
LORD SHEPHERD: I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DENHAM: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 25, after ("force") insert ("in relation to the premises").—(Lord Denham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CARRINGTON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 11, at end insert—
("(14) For the purposes of subsection (5) of this section. 'appropriate authority', in relation to an application for the grant or extension of an exemption of any premises from a requirement imposed by section 5(2), 6, 9 or 10 (1) of this Act,—

(a) where the authority who, by virtue of section 52 of this Act, have power to enforce with respect to the premises the provision imposing the requirement (or, where the application is made by virtue
862
of subsection (12) above, the authority who, by virtue of that section would have power so to enforce that provision if it were in force) is other than a factory inspector, a mine and quarry inspector or a person authorised under subsection (3) or (6) of the said section 52, means that authority;

(b) where the authority who, by virtue of the said section 52, have power to enforce with respect to the premises the provision imposing the requirement (or, where the application is made as aforesaid, the authority who, by virtue of that section, would have power so to enforce that provision if it were in force) is a factory inspector or a person authorised under section 52(3) of this Act, means the factory inspector in charge of the district in which the premises are situate;

(c) where the authority who, by virtue of the said section 52, have power to enforce with respect to the premises the provision imposing the requirement (or, where the application is made as aforesaid, the authority by, by virtue of that section, would have power so to enforce that provision if it were in force) is a mine and quarry inspector or a person authorised under section 52(6) of this Act, means the mine and quarry inspector in charge of the district in which the premises are situate.")—(Lord Carrington.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 47 to 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Information for employees]:
On Question, Whether Clause 50 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: May I draw my noble friend's attention to one phrase in subsection (2) of Clause 50? The last words of that subsection, refer to
"books or leaflets prepared under the auspices of the Minister".
This seems to me to be a somewhat strange phrase to find in an Act of Parliament, and I wonder whether it would not be better to have the books or leaflets either "prepared" by the Minister or "approved" by him. At the present moment, it seems to be extremely vague what his function will be.
LORD CARRINGTON: I will certainly look at it, although I think it is clear what it means. It means that the Ministry, in one way or another, are going to prepare simple booklets to explain what will happen under this Bill when it becomes an Act. I do not

863
think my noble friend need worry too much, but I will certainly look at it.
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52:
Authorities who are to enforce Act
52.—(1) It shall be the duty of every local authority to enforce within their area (and for that purpose to appoint inspectors) the foregoing provisions of this Act and regulations thereunder—

(a) except sections 28 to 38 and regulations under any of them; and

(5) It shall be the duty of the London County Council, as regards office or shop premises forming part of a place of public entertainment within the administrative county of London other than such a place occupied by them, to enforce (and for that purpose to appoint inspectors) the foregoing provisions of this Act and regulations thereunder, other than provisions or regulations which it is their duty to enforce in their capacity of a fire authority under the Fire Services Act, 1947.
5.54 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON LORD MILVERTON moved, in subsection (1), after "enforce" to insert:
", or, in respect of premises occupied by themselves, to comply with,"
The noble Lord said: In dealing with this Amendment No. 81, I should like also, with the permission of the Committee, to speak to Amendments Nos. 83 and 85, which also deal with Clause 52. By Clause 52, local authorities, non-county borough and other district councils, as well as county borough councils, are to be responsible, except as regards fire precautions, for inspecting most of the premises covered by the Bill, but in subsections (3) and (4) it is proposed that certain premises, including offices occupied by local authorities themselves shall be inspected instead by the Ministry of Labour Factory Inspectorate. It does not seem to me reasonable that, because there may be some doubt as to the efficacy of inspection of their own premises by the very smallest councils, these doubts should be allowed to determine the decision as to enforcement in relation to local authority premises as a whole.
Under existing legislation local authorities inspect their premises for certain purposes—for example, their catering establishments and their public slaughterhouses, under the Food and Drugs Act,
864
and also under petroleum licensing legislation. The standard of inspection adopted is invariably a rigorous one as the authority are anxious to set a high standard. The suggestion that local authority premises should be subject to external inspection derogates, I suggest, from the status of local authorities as responsible bodies, which has long been recognised by successive Governments and is expressed in the Report of the Local Government Manpower Committee. In the Bill it is proposed that Government offices should be inspected by Government inspectors, and I suggest that equal confidence should be placed in local authorities. There is surely no difference in principle between the two cases.
In particular, there seems no reason at all why one local authority should not be responsible for inspecting the premises of another local authority within its area. This situation arises not infrequently where the offices of a rural district or county council are situated in the area of a borough. Also, offices in county schools would, under the Bill, be inspected by the Factory Inspectorate, when they could well be inspected by officers of the district council in whose area the school was situated.
In Committee in another place an Amendment was put down which, if carried, would have had the effect of transferring the responsibility for inspection of local authorities' premises to the local authorities themselves, and it received support from both sides of the Committee—indeed, no objection was expressed to it. But in reply to the debate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour drew a distinction between the provisions in this Bill and those in other legislation under which local authorities inspect their own premises for the protection of employees, saying that there were none of these provisions in existing legislation. I suggest that this distinction does not affect the general argument. He went on to say, however, that he would be prepared to consider, without commitment, the possibility of putting down an Amendment at a later stage which would allow local authorities to inspect their own offices, and on this understanding the Amendment was withdrawn. A similar Amendment was moved at the Report stage, but the Government expressed a view

865
similar to that expressed on the Second Reading in your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and again the Amendment was withdrawn. I wish to pursue the matter further on the grounds that I have already put forward.
The Association of Municipal Corporations informed me that they find it hard to believe what was stated in this House: that the majority of members of the National and Local Government Officers' Association would prefer their offices to be inspected by the Factory Inspectorate rather than by their own colleagues—who would, after all, be members of the same Association. Whether or not the Act has been complied with will be a simple question of fact, and it would be impossible in practice for a local authority to decline to comply with the Act after one of its own officers had shown it to be in default. In the last resort, the Minister could take action under Clause 60 which was introduced at the Report stage in another place and gives the Minister of Labour a default power.
The first of the Amendments to Clause 52 set down in my name is designed to overcome a technical objection to the enforcement of the provisions of the Bill by an authority against itself by providing that, instead, the authority shall comply with its provisions in respect of premises occupied by itself. The second and third Amendments remove from subsection (3) the premises specified in paragraphs (a) to (e) inclusive and the premises of provincial police authorities in paragraph (f) and have the effect of bringing them within the scope of local authority inspection rather than inspection by the Factory Inspectorate. It will be noticed that all these premises are local authority premises of one kind or another except those in paragraph (d) occupied by probation committees, in respect of which there seems no good reason why the Factory Inspectorate should act.
During the Second Reading debate in this House the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren (who has spent a lifetime in local government in this country, and for whose opinions one must have the greatest respect), after paying great tribute to the work of local authorities, gave reasons for thinking that in the interests of general co-ordination, guidance and advice the provisions of the 13ill relating to central
866
inspectorates are desirable. In spite of what he said I still hold to my dislike of the growth of this central bureaucracy. The noble Lord, Lord Burden, also on Second Reading, denounced my views and was kind enough to describe them as "absurd", and to say that how anyone in the 20th century could talk like that left him puzzled. In spite of those strictures, I still hold these views and I am, not unreasonably, going to keep them; in fact, the Association of Municipal Corporations also holds them.
I would like just to add this comment: it is true that in experience of local government in this country I must yield to the two noble Lords who expressed these views. I have not spent my lifetime in local government: I have spent my lifetime abroad. But I have some experience of administration, and I know something about what I may call the psychology of mistrust. As an illustration let us look at it this way: suppose we were dealing with some place in Africa. I think I can reasonably say that noble Lords opposite would immediately jump up and say, "You must allow people to learn. The only way to learn to exercise responsibility is to have it given to you." They would urge that people in Africa, far less qualified than the local authorities in this country, should immediately have the authority to work out their own destiny. It seems to me curious that when one comes to deal with the natives of England apparently you cannot trust them; you must have a central inspectorate; you must tell them how to do things. Yet they are better qualified, by knowledge, experience and tradition, and by surrounding example, than some of the people thousands of miles away to whom we are told we must always give authority the moment they ask for it. I think that is a not unreasonable comparison, and I do suggest that the local authorities cannot be expected to live up to the responsibilities which are increasingly given to them unless they are trusted to do the work themselves and to operate the Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 13, at end insect (", or, in respect of premises occupied by themselves, to comply with,").—(Lord Milverton.)
LORD BURDEN: I sincerely hope that the Committee will not accept the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton. There are over 300,000

867
professional, technical and clerical staffs employed by local authorities which vary in size and responsibilities from the powerful and financially-strong county councils down to the small urban district councils. Obviously, the office accommodation varies in character. As I know from my own local government experience, there are excellent offices; on the other hand, there are local authorities where, to put it mildly, the office accommodation is not up to modern standards. We ought not to lose sight of the fact that this vast body of men and women are employed by elected councillors, and these elected councillors would, if the noble Lord's Amendment were carried, also be the employers of the men or women who had to inspect the offices. If this Amendment were carried, no body of employers in this country would be put in the same position as that of the local authorities: namely, the judges as to whether they will or will not comply with the conditions laid in this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament.
What the noble Lord is asking, in effect, is that 300,000 men and women, the largest body of men and women engaged in a vocation, should be contracted out of the provisions of the Bill, and that it should be left entirely to the discretion—I use a colourless word—of employers as to whether or not the workers would enjoy the modern standards in office accommodation which this Bill endeavours to lay down. The men or the trade union or association of the men who would be responsible for carrying out the inspection of their own offices would feel it an invidious duty imposed upon them to report that their employers were not conforming to the law; and those employers would be left to decide whether or not they would comply with the law.
Also, I am authorised to say that the National and Local Government Officers' Association, knowing far more than I do of the conditions of offices right throughout the country, welcome this Bill and ask your Lordships not to put them outside its provisions. They ask you to allow to stand what the Government have provided, and to reject what is put forward by the noble Lord, believing that it would be a reactionary step and defeat what the Association has advocated for years—better office accommodation for
868
the men and women in the employ of local authorities.
LORD MILVERTON: May I ask the noble Lord a question before he sits down? How does he excuse Government offices for being inspected by Government inspectors? Why not local authority offices inspected by local authority inspectors?
LORD BURDEN: I say briefly that no body of men ought to be judge and jury in their own cause.
LORD NEWTON: I think we must all recognise that every occupier of premises to which this Bill applies would like to inspect his own premises. That is perfectly understandable. We discussed the principle behind these Amendments during Second Reading, and in view of what I said about this subject during Second Reading I cannot believe that my noble friend Lord Milverton will be surprised that I have to advise your Lordships to reject his Amendments.
I should like to explain the legal difficulty which is inherent in the Amendments. They require that local authorities shall comply with their legal obligations. But surely such a provision is unnecessary. The obligation to comply with the law already rests on local authorities, as it does on other owners and occupiers. The question we have to decide is whether local authorities should be left merely with the duty of compliance with the law or whether we should make some provision for enforcement. If any such provision is made, it can be done only by some outside agency, and in practice the Factory Inspectorate is the most suitable body for the purpose.
The Government's view is that it would be wrong to make no provision at all for enforcement in local authority premises. My noble friend has argued, as he did on Second Reading, that local authorities enforce other Acts in their own premises, which is true; but none of the other Acts is in any way comparable with this Bill in dealing extensively and intimately with the conditions provided by the authorities for their own servants. That is the point of distinction, and I suggest that it is a fairly valid one. No doubt authorities will make every effort to comply with the

869
requirements of the Bill, if it is enacted; but, as I said on Second Reading, it is desirable that, in their own interests, they should have the opportunity of showing that they have done so.
My noble friend recognised the fact that county councils, for instance, will find themselves inspected by borough or district councils. He seemed to think that that did not matter, because sometimes their premises were already inspected by another local authority; but in this case it would be inspection by another authority to see whether they were providing for the health, safety and welfare of their own employees, and I cannot see many county councils taking kindly to that sort of situation. For all these reasons, I must advise your Lordships that my noble friend's Amendments are not acceptable.
LORD MILVERTON: I am disappointed at the reply, but, in view of the determination of the Government, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.17 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD had given Notice of two Amendments relating to inspectors, the first being in subsection (1), to leave out "and for that purpose to appoint inspectors". The noble Lord said: After listening to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, on a previous Amendment. I cannot help feeling that the Amendment I now move, and Amendment No. 89, to which I shall also speak, with the permission of the Committee, become of major importance. Let me remind the Committee of what the noble Lord said. He said that it was not the intention of the Minister in any way to interfere with the local authorities who will administer this Bill when it becomes an Act. Clause 52 places upon local authorities responsibility for enforcing the Bill. It is well recognised that none of the provisions of this Bill will be of any use unless there is effective enforcement, and we recognise the formidable task that is being laid upon the local authorities and the inspectors they appoint.
I suggest that in the early stages special qualities would be required of the inspectors—tact, understanding and firmness. They must understand that much can be done by persuasion. We should not wish local authorities or inspectors to wield
870
the big stick, and take matters to court: that type of action would arise only when persuasion, and perhaps leadership of the rest of the community, have failed. The essential inspectorate which the Government have set up has met much of our disquiet as to how 1,700 local authorities would enforce the Bill uniformly throughout the country. But, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, I must say that I am becoming a little unsure about whether the Government intend to use this central inspectorate in the way indicated in another place. It seemed to my friends there that this essential inspectorate should be virile and strong, out among the local authorities endeavouring to co-ordinate, to give assistance and guidance, and to do all things possible to make enforcement of these provisions by local authorities successful as quickly as possible.
Under this clause, the local authorities have power to appoint inspectors. Some noble Lords on this side of the House—and, I have no doubt, some noble Lords on the other side—would have preferred to see the inspectors appointed in the same way as factory inspectors are appointed under the Factories Act, 1961. Other noble Lords—and perhaps they are in the majority; certainly they are on this side—support the decision of Her Majesty's Government that the operation of this provision should be by the local authorities and that the inspectors to carry out that duty should be appointed by the local authority.
My first criticism of Clause 52 is that it has the appointment of inspectors put in brackets, as though it were a last afterthought. It certainly clearly lays down that it shall be the local authority who are responsible, but the mere appointment of inspectors is dealt with as if it were an afterthought and is placed in brackets. We on this side believe that the real effect of this Bill will depend primarily upon the quality of the inspectors appointed. I would suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, should look at the Shops Bill of 1957 (if he has it before him), which went through this House, but failed in another place. There we have this provision that the local authority should appoint the inspectors set out with a considerable amount of prominence.
I suggest that this inspector has to be a man of authority and responsibility.

871
If we are to give this appearance, first the Bill should clearly indicate that we regard the appointment of inspectors as of major importance. The Gowers Report—noble Lords are no doubt familiar with its contents—found that some local inspectors appointed by local authorities to inspect shops under previous legislation were such gentlemen—no doubt they are very worthy gentlemen—as a car park attendant, as a mayor's mace bearer. These may be worthy gentlemen, but hardly the right type of men we shall obviously require in this case if this Bill is to proceed with expedition. I would, first of all, beg the Government to give importance to the appointment of inspectors in the Bill.
There is no doubt as to the qualifications of these inspectors. I have not stated the requirements in my Amendment, but it is something which perhaps we could look at at a later stage. Again, the Shops Bill of 1957 said:
"The Minister shall have power by regulations in regard to the qualifications of the inspectors."
I think there is a valid point that, particularly in those areas where there will be a large number of shops and offices to be dealt with, an inspector should not only have a qualification but should be provided with the time and facilities for him to carry out his operation. Therefore, I would ask the Government and your Lordships to accept the first part of my Amendment No. 89; that is, to give real prominence to the local authority appointing the inspectors, and to make it clear in the Bill that we as Parliament look to the inspectors for the enforcement of this Bill when it becomes an Act. It will be through the inspectors that this Bill will be enforced and will be a success, and I think we should clearly recognise that matter in this clause setting out the appointment.
The second part of my Amendment No. 89, to which I am speaking, is that the notice of appointment of such inspectors and their office should be published in the local paper. I think it must be recognised that the name of a man appointed to a position of such importance to the well being of hundreds of thousands of workers should be published in the newspapers, and should be clearly on the records of the local authority, so
872
that any person who may have a matter to raise with the inspector will have no difficulty in knowing who is the inspector and where he can be found.
I come now to perhaps the most major part of the Amendment, and that is in regard to the dismissal of inspectors. My honourable friends in another place had an Amendment down, both on Committee and Report, that no inspector appointed under this Act should be dismissed from his appointment without the approval of the Minister. I think it is true that such provisions have been inserted in previous legislation. I am not going to suggest that there are any, or many, local authorities that would allow perhaps personal interests to affect their decisions on the appointment or the terms of tenure of an inspector; but I feel bound to say that there are a number of local authorities, perhaps most of them, who have on their council men and women directly involved in this type of business—shopkeeper and small office. I should not like to say that they would put their personal interests before their duty; but if there is a suspicion that they could, or would, I think, in fairness to the councillor and also to the inspector, we should ensure that if any dismissal does take place, the confirmation of it should take place in the full light of council and should not be something done in the back rooms by a committee.
I think it is true of most local authorities that when staff are dismissed they are dismissed by a decision of a committee and the minutes are before the full council for approval. But often these minutes slip through without any comment; and there are certain local authorities which deliberately delegate these powers to a committee. I would refer the noble Lord once again to the Shops Bill of 1957. Here the Minister had power to lay down the terms of tenure of office of the inspector. May I draw the attention of the noble Lord to the words of the noble and learned Viscount who now leads the House in defence of this proposition in your Lordships' House on March 5, 1957? He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 202, col. 220].
"As regards tenure, I think that my noble friend has probably overlooked the wishes of the inspectors themselves. Inspectors are particularly vulnerable to victimisation. This particular power in Clause 51(2) of the Bill"—

873
that is the one I have just referred to—
"was put in at their request, in order to protect them from local victimisation as a result of their activities … victimisation by people whom they have inspected. Such people may have certain powers. They may be able to lobby local interests against the person who has inspected them. Public health inspectors are rather analogous officials, and they have been protected. … It is, therefore, at the request of the inspectors, or potential inspectors, that this clause was inserted. It was not designed for the purpose of limiting freedom of local authorities, but for protecting the integrity and freedom of the inspectors."
Those, as I say, are the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and I think we should take considerable note of them, because they are of great importance. The noble Earl, Lord Kilmuir, who formerly sat on the Woolsack, speaking in 1952 at the Conference of Inspectors said:
"I am putting in the proposals for the enforcement of the health, welfare and safety of non-industrial premises a no-dismissal clause so as to avoid any shadow of suspicion that inspectors are being victimised simply by doing their duty."
I would not overburden the case by saying that there are many local authority councillors who would use their position if they found that the inspector was making life too difficult for them. But in the interest of the local authority councillor and of the inspector, I think we should make it perfectly clear that there must be valid grounds for his dismissal, and that his dismissal must be carried out in the open.
When drafting this Amendment, I considered whether to use the same phrase as my friends used in another place: that dismissal should be subject to approval of the Minister. I felt that there was some point in the case made by the Government, that the Minister should not be called upon to intervene in what might appear to be semi-domestic matters. I take the view—and my friends share it—that where a local authority dismiss an inspector, such a dismissal should be approved by the authority sitting in public meeting. That would mean that someone on behalf of the inspector, perhaps a member, would be able to get up and query the position. I feel also that I should draw the noble Lord's attention particularly to Clause 58, which is the clause on restriction of disclosure of information. Suppose that
874
an inspector has been dismissed for something that he has seen, and has run foul of the local authority (I am putting this purely as conjecture) and is dismissed. As I see it, under this clause he would then be prohibited, under pain of a very heavy tine or imprisonment, from disclosing what he saw in those premises. As I see it, this clause will prohibit any inspector, if he suffers injustice, from producing the evidence to substantiate the case he has made and which has resulted in his dismissal. Therefore, if Clause 58 is to stand, I think the utmost protection must be given to the inspector, so that he can carry out his duties with integrity without any fear from any quarter.
I hope that the Government will respond in this matter. I say that particularly in view of the fact that my friends in another place did not press their Amendment on the Report stage that dismissal should be referred to the Minister, because they believed that Clause 57 was a good deal stronger in intention than the noble Lord, Lord Newton, has given us to understand this afternoon. The noble Lord stressed the word "may"—he said that the Minister "may" make regulations. We gather from that that the Minister may not make regulations. These words in paragraph (a) were the words that made my friends decide not to proceed with the Amendment that I have just described. They felt that it was quite clear, from the regulations with respect to the manner of discharge of those duties in the exercise of the powers, that the inspectorate were to be active and that there was to be co-ordination. It would appear to us that the local authority inspector would be able to work closely with the central inspector, and if there was any case of dismissal, or any dispute between him and the local authority on his duties, or on the way he was carrying out the duties, at least he had some form of appeal to an impartial body. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, has given us an indication, rightly or wrongly—I will not attack him on that—that there is doubt whether these regulations will be made, particularly in regard to paragraph (a).
I beg the Government to consider very seriously the position of these local inspectors. First of all, let us give them prominence and importance, because it is on their shoulders that will lay responsibility

875
for the enforcement of this Bill when it becomes an Act. I hope that the Government can see that the question of qualifications will arise; that if these provisions are to be enforced the inspector should be of sufficient calibre, responsibility and the other qualities I mentioned, to see that the various office and shop occupiers will comply with these proceedings. Above all else, let us see that there is no doubt and no fear of victimisation, and that, whatever local authorities do outwardly and clearly, there is no doubt at any stage if local authorities are in dispute with their inspector on the carrying out of those duties. I believe this is of cardinal importance, and I hope the Government can meet us in this matter. I beg to move.
Page 42, line 14, leave out the said words.—(Lord Shepherd.)
6.35 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: I had not realised when the noble Lord put his Amendment down that he had deleted the first Amendment: "(and for that purpose to appoint inspectors)" because he was worried that it was not put prominently enough in the Bill. I can give him an assurance that this is only a drafting point. Of course, there is not the smallest intention of playing down the importance of inspectors. Indeed, as the noble Lord himself said, the enforcement of the Bill depends to a large extent on whether or not you have inspectors, and whether or not the inspectors are efficient. I can give him a positive assurance that the fact that the words are in brackets is only a Parliamentary draftsman's way of putting it. I do not believe there will be much difference in practice whether the words are in brackets or not, so long as the inspectors are appointed and they are good inspectors. I will give him an assurance that it is the Government's intention, not only to see that the inspectors are appointed, but that they should be good inspectors.
On the other two Amendments, I see what the noble Lord is trying to do and I have some sympathy with what he said about his new subsection (3), but I would ask him to bear the following points in mind. On subsection (2) there is this point. It would require the publication of a notice of an inspector's appointment in local newspapers. So far as I know,
876
there is no similiar provision in any other Act dealing with local government inspection, and certainly not in the Local Government and Public Health Act. So far as I know, there has been no demand whatever for any such provision. If the noble Lord's aim—and I understand this aim—is to make certain that the administration of the Bill by local authorities receives adequate publicity and people know who the inspectors are, and so on, I should have thought it was already met in Clause 59, to which my noble friend Lord Newton referred on a previous Amendment, and which relates to the annual reports which authorities are obliged to submit to the Ministry. If anybody wants to know the names of their local inspectors, all they have to do is to inquire at the town hall or local council office, and they will produce the answer. I should have thought it was going a little far to oblige local authorities to announce these appointments in the newspapers. So far as I know, there is no other comparable provision in any Act dealing with this sort of matter.
With regard to the noble Lord's last point, that dismissal should require the approval of a local authority in public meeting, here again, in spite of what he has said, my information is that there is no precedent in any Act of this kind that such a provision has ever been made before. I would put this to the noble Lord. I quite understand that he is worried that there might be cases in which there would be victimisation, but I put the other side of it to him. I think there could be cases in which it would be contrary to the inspector's own interest that his affairs should be discussed in public session by a local authority. I could imagine that it might be extremely embarrassing to him, and in many ways it would be very unfair that this should be done. So I think that one has to balance the possible injustice done to the inspector—though I will come in a minute to how I think we could remedy that—against the possible injury which could be done to his own personal position in some instances. I should have thought that this was the sort of matter which was best left to the machinery of consultation and negotiation between the local authorities and the staff associations concerned. I am sure that it is not the right sort of provision to put in a Bill of this kind and it would certainly

877
place restrictions on the independence of local authorities, which I should not have thought was entirely reasonable, although I quite see what the noble Lord is trying to do.
I should like to make one last point before I sit down. I think that the noble Lord opposite has read too much into what my noble friend Lord Newton has said about Clause 57. Certainly I agree with him that it was on the understanding that the powers in Clause 57 would, in cases of the kind that the noble Lord has mentioned, be appropriate to safeguard the inspector's position that his friends in another place did not press their Amendment; that is still my understanding of the matter. I hope, with those observations, that perhaps the noble Lord will be satisfied that, on the whole, it would be better not to do what he suggests but that the Government have every sympathy with the motive that he has in mind.
LORD SHEPHERD: I should be less than honest if I did not say that I am still not entirely happy, but I will come to that in a moment. I do not wish to delay the Committee, but this is a subject of very great importance. First of all, with regard to Clause 52, I think it should be altered. Merely to give the stress upon the importance that we relate to the inspector, I think the Bill should say that Parliament expects that the local authority shall appoint inspectors to ensure the operation of this Bill within their area. Perhaps it might be called a drafting point. I am sorry that I misled the noble Lord with my first Amendment, which was really paving the way. My noble friends feel that we should quite clearly show in the Bill the importance we attach to the position of the inspector. As I see it, other legislation has given this prominence to this official.
In regard to the question of address, I somehow remember a debate in which such provision was granted. Whether it was the Weights and Measures Bill of two years ago I do not know, but I remember a debate in which it was clearly acknowledged that, for the assistance of people, the name and address of the inspector should be made known. Whether it should be done by a newspaper announcement, for example, in the local gazette, or whether his name should
878
be prominently displayed in the council's offices, I do not mind, but I think it should be displayed somewhere, so that he is not some official who is unknown to the general public but known merely to some committee. His name and address should be readily available to the public.
I appreciate the point which the noble Lord made in regard to a public meeting of the local authority. This certainly was a point that entered my mind, but I could not think of any other way of bringing the dismissal of an inspector into the open, to provide that it should not be something done behind closed doors, and to show clearly that there was no case of victimisation. This inspector is in a very delicate position. It has been clearly recognised by many people involved in local authority work and in the enforcement of local authority legislation. I think we should give him far more protection than the Bill gives at present. Perhaps we could do it more readily if in Clause 57(1)(a)—we might consider this at the next stage of the Bill—where it is stated that the Minister
"may make regulations with respect to the manner of the discharge of those duties and of the exercise of the powers …",
we inserted the words which appeared in the Shops Bill and for which the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, fought so strongly:
"terms of tenure of office of the inspector",
In other words, I would suggest that, while we may not say that a dismissal has to be accepted by the Minister or local authority in public assembly, it is right that we should give the local inpector the opportunity for an appeal in the event of his dismissal and if he thinks he has been a case of victimisation. This may be a point which could be dealt with, as the noble Lord said, by consultation between the interested bodies, but I think that this inspector should have a right of appeal if he has been dismissed for something for which he feels his dismissal was wrong, because he merely carried out his duties under this Bill and ran foul of some particular organisation or person. Therefore I ask the Government seriously to consider giving this right of appeal to the local inspector if he is dismissed.

879
The noble Lord did not answer the point I made in regard to Clause 58 and the position of an inspector if he is dismissed. Could he use the information which was available to him to substantiate his position in open court? As I understand it, this clause precludes him from use of any of this information other than in criminal proceedings in pursuance of this Act. If the inspector were to take action in court because he believed he had been dismissed wrongly, could he use that information? The words "in pursuance" are here. I do not know how one should read it, but it seems to me one could use the information only in a law case connected with the operation of this Bill. The noble Lord is on the edge of his seat.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Before my noble friend answers that point may I say that, as I understand it, Lord Shepherd, is contemplating going back to this matter at another stage so all is not lost if the provisions of Clause 58 are not dealt with entirely at the moment. I have an Amendment down on Clause 58 and I wish to raise this whole matter when it comes to this point, but, in fact, what the noble Lord has said has rather widened the scope of what I had in mind on that point. Perhaps there will be more time when we come to Clause 58 for my noble friend to discover the answers on this.
LORD CARRINGTON: I do not want to discover the answers; I know the answers. I did not think it was very sensible to discuss Amendments on Clause 58 when we were discussing Amendments on this clause. What I was going to say to the noble Lord was that, as my noble friend behind me has an Amendment on Clause 58, perhaps we could discuss it then. You never know; the Government may even be prepared to accept an Amendment of this kind.
On the major issues which the noble Lord opposite has raised, I think the prominence of the inspectors is really a drafting point. I am reliably informed that the law takes no notice of punctuation; and if one read any Act drafted by Parliamentary draftsmen one would accept that without the smallest difficulty. But I do not think it really matters. The point is that inspectors have to be appointed; local authorities
880
have to appoint these inspectors, and they are going to be men of substance. I think that that ought to satisfy the noble Lord. But on the real point at issue which is worrying the noble Lord, I should have thought it would be much better to leave it as I suggested. The sort of case he has in mind would happen very rarely, if at all. There are very few councils which consist of only one class of person or of only one political Party. I think that victimisation of the kind he suggests would be most unlikely. If there were such a case, it surely could be dealt with either by the ordinary consultations I have in mind or under Clause 57, which in another place was recognised to be partly for this purpose. I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: I have no intention at this stage of pressing it, because I recognise I have still two more opportunities of dealing with this matter. Perhaps I might say this to the noble Lord. Would he not accept that, when a man has been put in a position by duty to enforce the provisions of this Bill, if there were any possibility that his dismissal arose from what he was doing under this Bill he should have at least a right of appeal on his dismissal? I think it is as simple as that. It may be a fact that there would be only one or two cases a year, perhaps only one or two cases in a generation, but even if that were so that is quite sufficient cause in principle to have this requirement. This is obviously a matter we shall have to pursue at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.52 p.m.
LORD DENHAM LORD DENHAM moved, in subsection (3), after paragraph (c) to insert:
"(d) premises comprised in premises used for the purposes of a school which, within the meaning of the Education Act 1944, is maintained by a local education authority ".
The noble Lord said: Subsection (3) of Clause 52 provides that the Factory Inspectorate shall enforce the Bill in premises occupied by a county council or local authority. The attention of my right honourable friend has been drawn to the fact that this provision could result in a confusing division of responsibility for enforcement in office and shop premises in schools maintained under

881
the Education Act. As drafted, the provision would result in factory inspectors being responsible for enforcement in schools established and maintained by a county council or local authority—that is, the county schools—and for local authorities to be responsible for enforcement in other schools maintained by a county council or local authority—that is to say, the voluntary schools. This division of responsibility is unsatisfactory and the Amendment has the effect of providing that all maintained schools which form part of the public education system should be inspected by one enforcing authority, the Factory Inspectorate. This problem does not arise in Scotland, and therefore a Scottish adaptation of the Amendment is unnecessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 42 at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Denham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DENHAM: The purpose of this Amendment is to provide that enforcement of the Bill in fuel storage premises on land owned by the railways shall be carried out by the Factory Inspectorate. We think that this is a very reasonable arrangement and one that should make for economy in administration, because factory inspectors will be enforcing the Bill generally in railway premises and will therefore be visiting the areas in which these railway coal depôts are situated. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 24, leave out from ("applies") to end of line 29 and insert:
("(d) railway premises;
(e) office premises occupied by railway undertakers for the purposes of the railway undertaking carried on by them and situate in the immediate vicinity of the permanent way (not being office premises comprised in hotels); and
(f) fuel storage premises owned by railway undertakers").—(Lord Denham)
LORD SHEPHERD: I understood that the Government conceded the point that fuel depoôts in the wholesale sense would be covered by this Bill. These may, of course, be close to refineries which are covered by the Factories Act. Perhaps the Minister would consider between now and the next stage whether that class of premises would equally be covered by the
882
factories inspector. Perhaps the noble Lord would consider that point.
LORD CARRINGTON: Fuel storage premises owned by the railways would be covered, if that is what the noble Lord has in mind.
LORD SHEPHERD: It has been conceded that fuel depôts for the wholesale section of the supply of liquid fuel would be covered. Many of these are, in fact, close to oil refineries which are covered by the Factories Act. I think perhaps there is a case for dealing with their premises in a similar way to those of railways: to save time and bother, to have it carried out by one inspector.
LORD CARRINGTON: Perhaps I might look at that point.
LORD HAWKE: Before we leave this Clause, I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell me if he has made up his mind how many persons are going to be involved in this inspection. We are to have inspectors, and presumably deputy inspectors, and their staffs. Their task will presumably be a good deal bigger than the task of the factory inspectorate, because I imagine that the number of offices, shops and railway premises is greater than that of existing factory premises in this country. The noble Lord has also mentioned that they are to be men of substance. I gather, from what I can understand of the Bill, that if the cost of this department falls on the ratepayer it will be reimbursed by the taxpayer. Perhaps the noble Lord would confirm that. Nevertheless, we as taxpayers should like some idea of how many persons we are likely to be employing to police this scheme.
LORD CARRINGTON: I could not say how many inspectors there will be. But I think the noble Lord must recognise that, if we have a Bill of this character, containing some fairly complicated provisions, and placing statutory obligations on a number of people to do things which the House as a whole considers to be desirable, then it will be necessary to see that the Bill is enforced; and there will necessarily be inspectors to do it. When I said "men of substance" (I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, means) I meant that they would be good inspectors. If there were too many inspectors I think we should be in the happy position in this House of

883
relying upon the inspection of these inspectors by my noble friend.
LORD HAWKE: Surely it must be a new principle for the Government to set on foot an organisation without having an idea of what it is going to involve, in persons or cost.
LORD CARRINGTON: The Minister may have a good idea how many there will be and what they will cost. I must confess that at the moment I have not. But I will try to find out.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.57 p.m.
VISCOUNT FURNESS VISCOUNT FURNESS moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "London County Council" and insert "council of a county". The noble Viscount said: The purpose of this Amendment, which may not be quite clear from the drafting, is to ensure that the position of theatres and cinemas throughout the country will be the same. Under the law as it stands at present, theatres are inspected by county councils; and that, of course, includes the councils of county boroughs. Under this Bill offices in theatres come in for inspection. In the territory of the London County Council and in county boroughs this will mean that the same authority will inspect both the theatre qua theatre or cinema qua cinema and the offices, and that outside these areas the borough councils or urban district councils and rural district councils will inspect the offices in those theatres or cinemas. This Amendment is designed to have the effect of putting all the inspection on the county council.
This point was raised in another place and the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Labour, in answering a similar Amendment, said that the only effect of the Amendment would be to bring together under the same authority responsibility for enforcing the Bill and for licensing in residual county areas where we must accept that theatres and cinemas are not so numerous. The information I have is that there are 1,420 cinemas in rural district and urban district council areas, and only 1,000 in the areas of the L.C.C. and county boroughs. So I should have said that the balance was on the other side. There are also many theatres—about 75—out-
884
side the county borough areas and the L.C.C. These include such theatres as the Arts, at Cambridge, the Chichester Festival Hall, at Chichester, the Royal Shakespeare Theatre, at Stratford, and the Theatre Royal, Windsor. So I would have thought that this was not quite such a small point as it may seem at first sight, or as indeed the Government have indicated at first sight. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 33, leave out ("London County Council") and insert ("Council of a County").—(Viscount Furness.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I wish to support what my noble friend Lord Furness has said about this. The information I have is that there are rather more than 75 theatres outside the London County Council and the county borough districts. My information is that there are about 130, as well as the 1,400 or 1,500 cinemas. In another place, I think at the later stages of the Bill, the Government resisted this Amendment, largely on one ground, namely, that if it were to be accepted that in the case of these places of public entertainment the county council should be the enforcement authority for the purposes of the Bill, then that authority would have to go through all the rigmarole of returns, reports, inspections and everything else that are involved in respect of the county district councils under the Bill as it now stands. I wonder whether in fact this is a sound answer.
In the first place, the county councils will be doing the fire inspection in any event, because it seems to me that Clause 52(1)(a) exempts the county districts from dealing with these matters of fire and they will be dealt with by the county authorities. In any event, if the county authorities are going to do the licensing of the cinemas and, on behalf of the Lord Chamberlain, the inspection of the theatres, it may be that in order to have these two matters dealt with by the same authority it would be better to do it the other way round. Perhaps my noble friend will consider whether these two duties in regard to theatres and cinemas which are now done by the county council should not be done by the rural or urban district council. It is absurd that there should be two authorities dealing with exactly the same building and, in

885
a large part, looking for exactly the same points, with their own inspectors going round regularly, and I have no doubt frequently, in order to see that these things are correct. Cannot my noble friend see that there is some point of substance in this, and try to get the matter dealt with by one authority, so that the position is quite clear?
LORD CARRINGTON: I think that there are difficulties about the suggestion of my two noble friends behind me, though it is perfectly true that this Bill does make a special case of the London County Council. In spite of what Lord Furness has said, I hope he will agree that the case of London is quite different from that of the rest of the country and that the balance of advantage is against extending the Bill in the way he proposes. The original reason for making special provision for London was that the L.C.C. as agents of the Lord Chamberlain under the Theatres Act, 1843, inspect many theatres in their area. It was therefore thought right to make the Council the enforcement authority in offices and shops in London theatres—and I would emphasise that we are talking only about offices and shops in cinemas and theatres—instead of giving this duty to the metropolitan boroughs (who would otherwise be the appropriate enforcing authorities under the Bill).
As the result of discussion in Standing Committee in another place, my right honourable friend agreed that it would be logical to extend the L.C.C.'s duties under the Bill to other places of entertainment which are inspected by them. There is a good, practical reason for this provision, as my noble friend Lord Furness has agreed, in that London has by far the largest concentration of theatres, cinemas and other places of public entertainment in the country. It is the concentration which is important, rather more than the numbers. The main concentrations outside London are found in the largest towns, which are county boroughs and so are in any case enforcing authorities under the Bill. The Amendment therefore affects only those areas administered by county councils outside London. I take the point that these councils have an interest in places of entertainment as licensing authorities, but I think that this interest is not normally exercised with the aim of employee pro-
886
tection in mind; it is usually from the point of view of the public, and is therefore not related to the purposes of the Bill.
The effect of my noble friend's Amendment, as my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross said, would be to impose a new range of duties on county councils for a limited area of employment—just the shops and offices in the cinemas and theatres. They would, as a result, in spite of what he said, have to maintain registers, issue and review exemptions, compile statistics and send in annual reports to the Minister. There is the further complication that in quite a number of county areas the county councils already delegate their powers to the lower tier authorities—that is to say, the district councils, which are, of course, the enforcing authorities under this Bill. In other areas magistrates may themselves he the licensing authorities for places of public entertainment. The position is really rather confused. I think that, apart from the main argument, it would be clearer to keep the pattern of enforcement which is laid down in the Bill. Certainly, in my opinion it would be a mistake to complicate further this pattern of enforcement. I do not think that any conflict will arise between the requirements of the licensing authorities and the enforcing authorities under the Bill in places where they are not the same. I hope that, with that explanation, my noble friend will see that the balance of advantage lies in leaving the Bill as it is.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I wonder whether, before my noble friend Lord Furness replies, my noble friend Lord Carrington could explain a little more about this delegation, because this is what I suggested might be the answer. Is it a widespread custom of the county councils to delegate to the county districts the duties of licensing and inspecting cinemas and theatres? Because, if so, it will presumably be no more difficult in other places. If they all did it, it would be the same authority in every case.
LORD CARRINGTON: I could not give the number of authorities who do this, but I am informed that quite a number of them do. I am not suggesting, by any means, that they all do it. It may well be a way out if my noble friend could encourage them all to do it.
VISCOUNT FURNESS: I am not wholly convinced by the reply of my noble friend, although he has gone fairly far to meet me by suggesting, even indirectly, that more county councils should delegate to lower authorities. As I say, he has not wholly convinced me. But I do not wish to press the point any further, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 53 to 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Restriction of disclosure of information]:
7.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved to leave out "pursuant to this Act" where that phrase first occurs. The noble Viscount said: This raises the point which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was talking about earlier this evening in connection with Clause 52. I think I am right in supposing that what has happened in the case of the drafting of this clause is that the precedent in the Factories Act, 1961, has been used, but it has been adapted in such a way because of the nature of what goes on in shops and offices that the clause, as it now stands, looks very much more frightening than it is meant to be. The similar section in the Factories Act prevents the inspector from disclosing any information he obtains in a place he has gone into in the course of his duty regarding any manufacture or trade process or trade secret. I have a strong suspicion that Her Majesty's Government mean only the same sort of information to be dealt with by this particular clause. On the other hand, the drafting as it now stands is by no means clear, and even if this is what is meant it is certainly not what the clause now says.
As I understand it, the clause would not prevent any factory inspector from giving evidence in a negligence case where somebody had fallen down stairs which he had seen earlier were defective and had reported to his authority. It would be impossible for the plaintiff in such a case to call the factory inspector to give evidence about the defective staircase if the factory inspector was going to be liable to these large penalties or
888
imprisonment. I am certain that that is not what the Government meant. I put down the Amendment to allow him to give such evidence in any civil case, quite apart from one which arose out of this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, extended the case to the instance of the inspector finding himself in front of something which might not be a legal inquiry or court but an administrative tribunal of one sort or another, before which he was arraigned and was defending himself against dismissal. This would not be covered by my Amendment, and I think that it should be covered. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will be able to say that something can be done about this clause so that its enormous width can be restricted to what I am certain, was intended in the first place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 24, leave out ("pursuant to this Act").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD CARRINGTON: My noble friend is quite right in his interpretation of this clause and these words as they now stand. Indeed, this point was raised in another place during the passage of the Bill. It was brought to the attention of my right honourable friend that this principle might work rather unfairly, in exactly the same way in which my noble friend has suggested, either to the disadvantage of the employer or the employee, or both. My right honourable friend is looking into this question, and I will bring to his attention not only the observations made by my noble friend behind me, but also what Lord Shepherd said earlier about this matter and the dismissal of inspectors. Although my noble friend will realise that I cannot commit the Minister of Labour to an acceptance of an Amendment on the lines that the noble Viscount has suggested, I will give an assurance that we are studying the matter very carefully, and, if my right honourable friend is satisfied with the arguments advanced this afternoon, he will put down a suitable Amendment at a later stage.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am very grateful to my noble friend, and I hope that it will result in something. If this clause remains as it is now written it is going to have a very

889
deleterious effect when it comes to the point, because it is impossible to restrict the simple word "information" in the way my noble friend says is intended. It is going to lead to all the trouble which both Lord Shepherd and I foresee, and I very much hope we shall see an Amendment on Report stage; and I hope it will be an Amendment which is wider than mine, which does not cover the other point I mentioned.
LORD SHEPHERD: We are fearful of some of the interpretations by the Courts, even by the House of Lords sitting judicially, as to what will be understood to be the object of the Bill and what they themselves will read into it; there might be some disparity. Therefore, this clause should be seriously looked at. My own feeling at this stage is that I would not mind asking the Government to delete this clause from the Bill. Perhaps that is asking too much at this late stage, but I hope we shall see at Report stage—or, if possible, before Report stage—the Government's proposals on this very important clause.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clauses 59 to 69 agreed to.
LORD DENHAM LORD DENHAM moved, after Clause 69, to insert the following new clause:
Local authorities' inspectors in Scotland to have power to institute proceedings in certain cases
".—(1) An inspector appointed under this Act by a local authority may, if duly authorised in that behalf by a general resolution of the authority, make a summary application under section 22 of this Act with respect to any premises with respect to which the authority have power to enforce any of the provisions of sections 4 to 21 of this Act; and for the purposes of this subsection the expression 'premises' includes a common part of a building to which section 42 or section 43 of this Act applies.
(2) An inspector appointed under this Act by the authority discharging in any area the functions of fire authority under the Fire Services Act 1947 may, if duly authorised as aforesaid by the authority, make a summary application under section 32 of this Act with respect to any premises in that area with respect to which they are the appropriate authority for the purposes of that section."
The noble Lord said: As your Lordships are aware, Clause 22 of the Bill provides a procedure under which an enforcing
890
authority can make a complaint to a magistrates' court (or in Scotland a summary application to a sheriff) in respect of dangerous conditions and practices in premises. There is a similar procedure under Clause 32 as regards means of escape in the case of fire. It may be of the greatest importance that action under these provisions should be taken without delay. It has been suggested that it might be necessary for a local authority inspector to submit a particular case to the next meeting of a council or committee to obtain authority to take proceedings under these clauses, with an inevitable lapse of time before a complaint or summary application could be made.
After studying the point, my right honourable friend is satisfied that in England and Wales powers exist in the Local Government Act, 1933, and the London Government Act, 1939, which enable a local authority to authorise one of their officers to exercise their discretion for the purpose of instituting proceedings under Clause 22 or Clause 32 in a particular case. So far as Scotland is concerned, however, the provisions of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947 are insufficient for this purpose, and for that reason my right honourable friend has proposed this new clause which will give similar powers to Scottish local authorities. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 69 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Denham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 70 agreed to.
LORD MILVERTON LORD MILVERTON moved, after Clause 70 to insert the following new clause:
Appeal from refusal of court to make order
".Where on a complaint made to an appropriate court under subsection (1) of section 22 of this Act the court fails to make an order under that section the complainant may appeal therefrom to a court of quarter sessions."
The noble Lord said: This proposed new clause was the subject of a good deal of discussion in another place, and I can deal very briefly with it. Clause 70 provides that a person aggrieved by an order made by a magistrates' court on determining a complaint under the Act may appeal therefrom to a court of quarter sessions, but no provision is made in the

891
Bill for appeal by a local authority in cases where a court refuses to make an order. It is not even clear whether local authorities have a right of appeal upon a question of law by way of a case stated to the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division.
The new clause would enable local authorities to appeal against a decision of a court under Clause 22, whereby it declined to make an order for putting down dangerous conditions and practices. Local authorities and their officers are, in the nature of things, more knowledgeable about the matters with which the Act deals than are justices, and therefore they should at least be given a second chance to make their case.
In another place this matter was raised in Committee, when the Minister of Labour made the following comments:
"It is arguable that enforcing authorities should have the same rights of appeal. The circumstances are different, however, from the case of a citizen who is wanting to appeal against a decision which may involve him in considerable expense or even shut down his office or shop. That case is different in kind from that of the enforcing authority wishing to pursue its disagreement through the magistrates' courts. This is an issue which is between the administration and the administered, and I think the cases are quite different. I do not think we can argue that there is necessarily an equal right of appeal in these circumstances."
That is what the Minister said, but the explanation is not an entirely convincing one. While it is proper that an employer should have a right of appeal, because his business may be involved or because he may incur expense, it is equally proper that the enforcing authority should have it also, in the interests of the persons who are employed in the relevant premises.
This matter was raised again at Report stage in another place, when a new clause was moved similar to that here proposed. It will be noticed that in another place there was disagreement about the state of the law on the point. To meet the objections stated in col. 478 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, for March 6, I have inserted in the new clause a reference to subsection (1) of Section 22, and thus debarred local authorities from appealing against an interim order which might have resulted in the case appearing before the court four times. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 70 insert the said new clause—(Lord Milverton.)
LORD CARRINGTON: As my noble friend has said, this is a matter which was discussed at considerable length in another place. As he also said, legal opinion on both sides of the Chamber took one view, while some lay members took another view. I am afraid that much of what I say will be in effect what my right honourable friend the Minister said in answer to this Amendment in another place. Because, though it may on the face of it seem equitable that equal rights of appeal should be given to both parties, in fact I should have thought that their interests were quite different. The decision of the magistrates' court against the occupier hits his interests—he has to do something and spend money, or even shut down his premises—and in accordance with general principles about appeal from courts of first instance, he is given the right of appeal to a higher court. But the enforcing authority is not in the same position; he has not got to do anything or spend any money because of the decision. He finds that the court has not upheld his judgment on an enforcement issue.
In my view, particularly in view of this difference, there is not a sound case for going further in this Bill than we did in the Factories Act. In factories, the safety issues are likely to be even more important than those under this Bill. One must have finality in enforcement at some point, and, so far as the enforcing authority is seeking to impose his will on the occupier, the Government's view is that finality should be at the stage of the magistrates' court, as in the Factories Act.
But the enforcing authority may have an alternative course of action, if a magistrates' court refuse to make an order under Clause 22. Under that clause an enforcing authority may apply to a magistrates' court for an order which, for example, might prohibit the use of premises in a dangerous condition. If the enforcing authority can satisfy the court that the immediate danger exists, no doubt the court will make the necessary order. If the court is not satisfied, then it will be open to the enforcing authority to charge the person concerned with an offence under the Bill, if a contravention of some other provision can be proved.

893
So I do not think it right that the appeal to quarter sessions should be extended in the way intended by my noble friend in moving this new clause. I hope that, in view of the explanation I have given, he will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD MILVERTON: In view of the explanation which the noble Lord has given—
LORD SHACKLETON: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, may I ask the First Lord whether there are further powers? I am not a lawyer, but if, in fact, the court take a decision which is unsatisfactory, and which according to legal advice is unsatisfactory, is there some process of a writ of mandamus or something of that kind? I do not know whether this is a matter on which a lawyer can give us advice. Perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, could help us. Because I understand there are times when magistrates take decisions when it is open for the matter to be taken to a High Court on a writ of mandamus.
LORD CARRINGTON: The noble Lord has torpedoed me amidships. I do not know. I will find out and let him know, but I am afraid I could not, without notice, answer that question.
LORD MILVERTON: In view of the noble Lord's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 71 and 72 agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended at twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock and resumed at twenty-five minutes past eight o'clock.]
Clause 73 [Amendment of Section 125 (1) of Factories Act 1961, and provisions consequential thereon]:
LORD NEWTON: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 11, at end insert—
("(3) The reference in the said section 125 (1) to a warehouse in or for the purposes of which mechanical power is used, being a warehouse neither forming part of a factory nor belonging to the owners, trustees or conservators of a dock, wharf or quay, shall be construed as not including a building occupied
894
by a wholesale dealer or merchant where goods are kept for sale wholesale or a part of a building so occupied where goods are so kept.")—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 73, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 74 to 78 agreed to.
Clause 79 [Mode of service of notices under this Act]:
8.27 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON LORD MILVERTON moved, in subsection (3), after the third "given" to insert "or sent by post". The noble Lord said: This is a small, drafting Amendment, really, although one needs to have some temerity to suggest that one can make a drafting Amendment. The clause deals with the mode of service of notices under the Act, and under subsection (1) a notice to a factory or mine or quarry inspector may be delivered to him or left at or sent by post to his office. Under subsection (2), a notice to any other person may be similarly served; but the wording of subsection (3) is such as clearly to suggest that notice to a corporation or a firm has to be served or given in person and cannot be sent by post, which is unreasonable on the face of it.
The Ministry of Labour say that this interpretation is incorrect. They say:
"We are advised that a notice under subsection (3) can be served by post on a corporation or firm. Subsection (1) deals with the service of a notice on a factory or mine or quarry inspector. Subsection (2) deals with the service of a notice on any person other than a factory or mine or quarry inspector, and states that it may be served or given by delivering it to him or by leaving it at his proper address or by post. Subsection (3) deals with the service of a notice in the case of a corporation or firm and states whom it may be served on. But it may be served by reference to subsection (2), that is, by post, if required.
To me, with my limited intelligence, the Minister's explanation is not readily intelligible. It would appear from a straightforward reading of the clause that "any such notice" in subsections (2) and (3) means "a notice required or authorised by or by virtue of this Act" the rest of subsection (1) not being incorporated by the phrase "any such notice". The Amendment which I am moving should settle this question beyond doubt. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 5, after ("given") insert ("or sent by post.")—(Lord Milverton.)
LORD HAWKE: I should have thought this was a very dangerous Amendment to accept. In this country we are in the habit of assuming that letters posted will reach their destination. But there are many capital cities in the world where it is extremely unusual for letters to reach their destination, at any rate within reasonable time, and where other methods of personal delivery have to be put into action if it is desired to make certain that a package arrives. There are other parts of the world where the post is reasonably reliable but service by post is very easily avoided; and to cope with that problem there is a service known as "registered acknowledgment due." I should have thought that although it is rare for postal packets to get lost in this country, it can happen: and the loss of a postal packet serving notice on somebody to do something failing which he can incur some penalty, is usually a serious matter, which makes it advisable that any service by post should be done by registered post.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Or by recorded delivery, which is rather a cheaper and more efficient way of doing it these days.
LORD NEWTON: Much as I should like to, I doubt whether I can please both my noble friends Lord Milverton and Lord Hawke; but the Government certainly want to provide that notices may be served on corporations by post. We have in fact done so already in the Bill, and I hope to persuade my noble friend that his Amendment is not necessary. Subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 79 deal with the manner in which notices may be served and include service by post. Subsection (2) refers to a person—this is in the last line on page 56. All that subsection (3) sets out to do is to explain who that person shall be in the case of a corporation or a firm. It says that any notice required to be served on a corporation or firm may be effected by serving the notice, and that includes service by post by virtue of subsection (2). I hope therefore that my noble friend will feel satisfied. I can assure him that I am satisfied that it is all right.
LORD MILVERTON: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I can hardly describe my state of mind as one of satisfaction, but I bow to the fact that Her Majesty's Government prefer a little obscurity to absolute clarity, and therefore beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, may I ask whether my noble friend could at the next stage of the Bill insert something to say that all service by post must be by recorded delivery or by registered post?—because, so far as I understand it, this Bill provides for various notices that can be given, and it is most important that they should reach the would-be recipient. He is otherwise involved in penalties, and so on. It is quite impossible to provide that any package sent by ordinary post either has or has not been received. I should have thought that from everybody's point of view it would be much more satisfactory if there were some method of registered or recorded delivery.
LORD CHAMPION: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, on this matter. Sitting in a magistrates' court, one is often told that notice served by post is not sufficient. Many times I have seen proceedings adjourned until the subsequent court simply because there is no proof that a summons has been served. It appears to me well that between now and Report stage the Minister should look at this matter and perhaps include the words suggested. It seems quite unfair that anyone who had not received this notice should be subject to the penalties that may well fall on him for not obeying a summons which he did not receive.
LORD NEWTON: Of course, I will consider what noble Lords have said on this point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 79 agreed to.
Clause 80 agreed to.
Clause 81 [Application to the Crown]:
LORD NEWTON: This Amendment and the following four Amendments are all consequential on Amendment No. 62. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 27, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(6)").—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NEWTON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 34, leave out the third ("and").—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NEWTON: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 35, after ("30(4)(b)") insert ("and the second reference in section 30(6)").—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NEWTON: I beg to move this Amendment also.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 39, leave out the third ("and")—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NEWTON: I beg to move Amendment No. 100.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 40, after ("30(4)(b)") insert ("and for the second reference thereto in section 30(6)").—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CARRINGTON: This Amendment is consequential on Amendments Nos. 77 and 80, which your Lordships have already accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 3, leave out from ("onwards") to end of line 5 and insert ("and subsections (5) to (14) had been omitted; and an exemption of any such premises from a requirement imposed by a provision of this Act may be granted under the said section 46 despite the fact that the provision imposing the requirement is not in force in relation to the premises.").—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 81, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 82 and 83 agreed to.
Clause 84 [Exclusion of application to premises occupied for transitory purposes]:
8.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved to add at end of the clause:
"or before the date of the hearing of the prosecution, whichever is the earlier".
The noble Viscount said: Clause 84 was either inserted in another place or at
898
any rate, extensively modified there. It provides a defence, not only in proceedings to recover damages but also in any prosecution for an alleged contravention of the terms of this Bill, for the person to show that his was a mobile office or shop or, alternatively, a fixed one and that in either case it was being used only temporarily for this purpose. If it is a mobile one, he may use it safely for six months; and if it is a temporary use of a permanent office or shop, he may use it safely for six weeks. If he shows that the use has stopped at the end of that period, then he is safe from prosecution.
What worried my noble friends and myself about this was what would happen if he was prosecuted before the end of the six weeks or six months. In that case it would be impossible for him to prove that the use ceased or had already ceased at the end of the requisite period, because the requisite period would not have already come to an end. Therefore, I put down this Amendment to try to clarify the matter. I must confess that I think I have in fact only made it worse, because I have placed a more stringent requirement on the person using these temporary premises in the case where it was possible to do it, and I have cut down the period he may do so with impunity.
I wonder whether it would not be better to have another look at this matter, to see whether a prosecution should not be brought before the end of six weeks or six months. My noble friend Lord Denham may say that this will be difficult in certain cases where there is a flagrant breach of the Bill, but not so flagrant as may be dealt with either under Clause 22 or Clause 32, which are not cases of prosecutions, but are subject to complaints by which an order to stop the use of the premises until the matter is put right can be obtained. In any case, I think there must be some method of dealing with these prosecutions which might fall before the end of the statutory period, because otherwise the whole object of the defence will be defeated. I confess that I am baffled how exactly to do it, but I hope that my noble friend will be prepared to look at this matter again to see whether it can be put right in some way. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 17, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD DENHAM: The object of this clause is to put temporary structures or temporarily occupied premises outside the scope of the Bill. As my noble friend has suggested, it also puts them beyond the provisions of Clauses 22 and 32, which means that there cannot be any immediate action taken in case of safety standards thought to be lacking. But the sort of thing my right honourable friend had in mind with this particular clause is the temporary structure that is put up on a building site, a temporary structure at the docks or a room temporarily used as an office for much the same thing. It was thought to be necessary to exclude these temporary offices from the provisions of the Bill.
As to my noble friend's worry that the defence of a man occupying one of these temporary offices in saying that he was going to occupy it for only six months, and if he were prosecuted before six months he would not be able to have that defence, because nobody would know whether he was going to cease occupation or not, my advice at the moment is that this would not happen. If anybody tried to take proceedings under this clause before the six months or six weeks, as the case might be, I am advised that the case would be adjourned. We are looking into this point again and making absolutely sure about it. If we are wrong, we will, of course, bring in something at a later stage. But that is my advice at the moment.
LORD SHEPHERD: Before the noble Viscount withdraws his Amendment, may I say this? I can see the point the noble Viscount has made for the exclusion of these premises from these provisions—six months in the case of one, and six weeks in the other. But within which period? Is it six months within twelve months, and six weeks within one year? Reading the clause very quickly, I do not see that there is any connection between the six months and six weeks with any other period. I think it would be wrong that we should create a loophole whereby you can get a temporary period of six months and close the place down for six weeks, and then move the wooden structure somewhere else.
LORD DENHAM: It says
" … beginning with the day on which they were occupied for that purpose. …"
It is for six months or six weeks from that day, as the case may be.
LORD SHEPHERD: Would it be possible for the occupier—the building site was a case the noble Lord quoted—after six months to close the place down and a week later to start it up again? Do the two six months run concurrently, or is it six months within twelve months?
LORD DENHAM: I do not think so, but I will certainly look into that point and let the noble Lord know.
LORD HAWKE: I think the point the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, visualises is of some particular rogue office employer who spends his time flitting from office to office staying five months and 29 days at each of them in order to avoid the provisions of this Bill. I really do not think that that is likely to happen.
LORD SHACKLETON: I feel that my noble friend is on to a point of substance. This is an issue which confronts anybody who is involved with administration. When a period of six months is stipulated, it is also necessary to state the period within which that six months applies. If one were to say, "in the course of any one year" it would become much clearer. My noble friend's point is surely that it would be possible, as this clause is at present drawn, to vacate such an office for one day and then reopen it. I may have misunderstood these words. I think the clause is not clearly defined, both in regard to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, or the point which my noble friend Lord Shepherd has made. I do not want to press it at this stage. I had been inclined to speak on the Question, That the clause stand part, but I understand that the Government are prepared to look into this point. It is a fact that if you are imposing a restriction you must state the period within which it applies, either by suing that it cannot be reopened again, or by saying, "not more than six months in any single year", otherwise it would be possible completely to defeat the purpose of the clause.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Before my noble friend replies, I would

901
say that I think a number of points have emerged. For one thing, if this clause is intended to deal with items like contractors' huts, there is nothing in it which says so. It can deal with any office of any sort or kind, so far as I can make out, which is used temporarily over a period within this Bill. Secondly, if it is intended to deal with buildings like contractors' huts, does it follow that, because the hut is on one building site for five months and 29 days, and is then removed to another one, the six months then starts again? There are any number of difficulties about the definition of "movable structure"—even if, I may say, you spell "movable" with only one "e"—which have caused difficulties in other parts of the law. It seems to me that this provision is full of loopholes.
My noble friend Lord Denham further worried me because he suggested (I do not know whether this is my fault) that the words "any prosecution" also applied to the emergency measures under Clauses 22 and 32. Those, of course, are proceedings in the magistrates' courts by way of a complaint, and they deal with premises which are quite unfit to be occupied for these purposes and have to be closed temporarily until matters are put right. If this is also meant to come within the word "prosecution" it means to say that there is going to be a long period of time in which there might be a serious fire during which magistrates can do nothing about this at all. If "prosecution"—which I do not think is a term of art (although I may be wrong; and I shall look in the Magistrates' Courts Act)—means only a summons as a result of an information, then it is presumably all right; but I feel that this is another point which ought to be checked, otherwise those two provisions in Clauses 22 and 32 will not apply to those premises. I hope that my noble friend will have a comprehensive look at this clause and try to bring out much more clearly what it is intended to apply.
LORD HAWKE: I hope that, in saying he will look at these things, he will not seek to bring this whole paraphernalia of this very complicated Bill to bear on temporary huts on temporary sites.
LORD CARRINGTON: I really think that this clause is all right. I think the
902
point which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, makes is answered, in that the purpose of the occupation is what matters and not the time; so that if the occupier left for a day and then re-occupied it for the same purpose it would be covered by the Bill. The time would count because of the purpose. It is the purpose which matters, not the time.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I hope, none the less, that my noble friend will look at it again. I think it is possible to take a builder's hut from place to place and use it for six months in each without offending against this particular clause.
LORD SHACKLETON: Does the noble Lord mean that the hut will be unusable for ever after if it is used for the same purpose, or if the same person uses it for the same purpose? I think that the noble Lord might take a further look at this and give a rather more forthcoming assurance than he has yet given.
LORD CARRINGTON: Of course it will be looked at again. But I think it is perfectly clear. It is perfectly clear to me; but if it is not to the noble Lord I will look at it again.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: With great respect, I think this is more complicated than my noble friend imagines; because in the case of a builder's hut there is some difficulty as to whether it is the same structure as it was in the first place after it has been taken down and put up on another site. This point has arisen in rating matters, and it becomes very difficult to say whether it is the same structure as it was before. In that case it becomes a new structure and is given six months' exemption. I do not think this is covered by the clause.
LORD CARRINGTON: My noble friend talks as if the Parliamentary draftsmen and the whole Ministry of Labour and the Government were complete fools and that he was the only person who had ever read the Bill. I do not think this is so; but I will certainly look at it again.
LORD SHACKLETON: I only think that at this late stage of the Committee the noble Lord might be a little more controlled in his remarks. It is the duty

903
of Parliament to examine these things. It would not be the first time that Parliamentary draftsmen, who are very able people and work very hard, have missed a point. There have been a large number brought in in this Bill. I think, so far as Parliamentary draftsmen are concerned, that the First Lord has not been a successful defender of them.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.0 p.m.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved to add to the clause.
"(2) The foregoing subsection shall not apply to a prosecution for an offence consisting in a failure to comply with an obligation imposed under section 49(1) of this Act to notify the appropriate authority that persons would be employed to work in any premises; but in any such prosecution it shall be a defence to prove that the persons in question were employed to work in the premises while they were ocupied as mentioned in the foregoing subsection."
The noble Lord said: The provisions of Clause 84, we now know, if we did not know before, relate to premises occupied for transitory purposes and do not at present provide a defence against an offence committed under subsection (1) of Clause 49. This is because the obligation in this subsection requires an employer to register the proposed employment of persons in offices, shops or railway premises before he begins to employ them. In the case of such an offence, it would not be possible to prove (as required by Clause 84) that at the time of the alleged contravention the premises were occupied for a temporary purpose during a period beginning with the first day of occupation and ending six months or six weeks later as the case may be. The new subsection proposed in the Amendment I am moving adapts Clause 84 to the requirements of Clause 49, with the result that an occupier would have a defence. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 17, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 84, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 85 to 87 agreed to.
Clause 88 [Interpretation]:
LORD SHEPHERD: It is with some trepidation that I move this Amendment. It is consequential on the Amendment that the Government accepted on Clause 18. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 63, leave out lines 3 and 4.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 88, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 89 [Short title, commencement, extent and repeal]:
8.57 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved to add to subsection (4):
"Provided that any such repeal of any provision of the Shops Act 1950 shall not extend to any premises excepted from the operation of this Act by section 2 of this Act."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment, although it looks a harmless one, is in fact quite a substantial one. Your Lordships will recall that we spent a considerable time discussing Clause 2 of this Bill, which exempted from the provisions of the Bill premises in which only employers' relatives or out-workers work. In the course of the discussion on it, I think it must have been apparent to every one of your Lordships that this is a very peculiar, purely sentimental and rather pointless clause of the Bill. If it had been proposed to extend this exemption to small businesses of a kind for which there are powers for exemption, it would have been understandable. I would not only repeat that it seems to me quite extraordinary to limit this to this narrow group of family relations, and then suddenly find, because the wife gets ill and she has to send for her sister to work and help out, immediately the full force of the Bill begins to apply.
I think it is a pity that this clause is in the Bill, and we shall probably want to talk about it further on the Report stage. But what is more significant—and this is the purpose of this Amendment—is that certain provisions of the 1950 Shops Act which hitherto had applied to these family premises are now to be repealed. It is quite logical to repeal those particular sections of the 1950 Shops Act so far as all those

905
premises which are covered by this particular Bill are concerned. But the family premises were not so covered, and when we look at the old Shops Act we see that Sections 37 to 39—and my remarks are mainly directed to these—had some quite important provisions which, apparently, have been worked satisfactorily, or if they have not been worked they have caused no trouble; but I suspect they have been worked and they have been a useful residual power for the last twelve years. These relate to a number of matters, some of which are covered in more detail more satisfactorily in this Bill, and in my view it would have been better if this Bill had applied to those family premises.
But I would ask your Lordships to consider what we are now removing from the Statute Book which has hitherto applied to these premises. First of all, under Section 37 of the Shops Act, 1950, there was provision in regard to providing seats behind the counter. That has always been an important part of the Shops Act and is surely just as applicable in a family business as elsewhere. If we are met once again with the argument that families can be trusted to look after their own, I would only remind your Lordships again of the number of abuses of a more acute kind which finally find their way into the courts as the result of a criminal offence. I see absolutely no reason why this perfectly reasonable provision should not apply to family shops. The provisions of that section have apparently been worked, unless the Government can show us otherwise, quite satisfactorily for twelve years.
Then there are also provisions for sanitary and other arrangements in shops. It seems to me that proper sanitation in any shop is a matter that is also in the interests of the general public. It may well be that the noble Lord can tell us that powers to cope with this are in the hands of sanitary inspectors and others. Furthermore, there are powers under Section 38 of the Shops Act to grant exemptions if this be necessary. But it is surely desirable in the public interest that there should be proper sanitary arrangements. There was also a requirement that there should be provided and maintained suitable and sufficient facilities for the taking of meals, and for washing and so on. These may seem to be small matters, but
906
Parliament has seen fit to apply them and to incorporate them in legislation; they have been in existence for twelve years, and we have been given no reason why they should be removed.
This brings me to my final point, in which I really suggest that the Government have, to put it mildly, been less than frank. It may be that the noble Lord who is to reply can correct me on this, but I have not seen any statement of the intention not merely not to apply this proposed Bill to these particular premises, but to remove certain protections that existed in the past. It seems to me that this particular clause has passed through another place without their being aware of the implications of the particular proposal, and without discussion taking place on it. If this is really so, then unless the Government can show me that they have explained its effect and made clear that it did exempt these premises I think we should do well at this stage to pass Amendment No. 104 and give an opportunity for further consideration in another place. In my view, the Government have made a mistake in putting Clause 2 into this Bill at all; I am sure it is a nonsense. But I think they have made a bigger mistake by a lack of frankness which could almost amount to a deception of Parliament in their failure to explain what the consequences of this particular proposal were. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 6, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Shackleton.)
LORD NEWTON: I think I ought to begin by saying that I really cannot accept any suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that the Government have been guilty of not being sufficiently frank or forthcoming, or guilty of any deception about this Bill. I do not think he has any grounds for putting forward that complaint. The Shops Act—
LORD SHACKLETON: Before the noble Lord leaves that point, would he tell us on what occasion, and when, the effect of this was explained in either House of Parliament?
LORD NEWTON: I have no idea whether it was explained or not in the other place.
LORD SHACKLETON: Do you not read Hansard?
LORD NEWTON: I am not a Member of the other place. It is not my duty to answer for what is said or is not said in another place. What I ought to say, I think, is that the Shops Act is mainly about such matters as closing hours, hours of employment of young persons, and Sunday trading, and all those provisions will continue to apply to family shops as they do now. What the Bill does is to repeal those sections of the Shops Act which are concerned with seats, ventilation, temperature, sanitary conveniences, lighting, and washing and eating facilities, all of which subjects, as the noble Lord himself recognised, are dealt with in much greater detail either in this Bill or in the regulations which are to be made under it. It is, therefore perfectly logical to repeal the effect of the Shops Act in so far as it is only a mirror of what this Bill provides for in premises other than family businesses.
When we were discussing Clause 2 and the Amendments thereto moved by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, I explained that the Government decided as a matter of principle that family businesses should be excluded from the scope of the Bill because they do not think it is desirable to extend the opportunities for inspectors to go into family premises. Quite obviously, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, does not accept that. For instance, he described this principle on which we are taking our stand as purely sentimental, peculiar and, I think, unnecessary—I may have forgotten the last adjective. He is perfectly entitled to take that view, and I explained at least once when debating Clause 2 and the Amendments on it that on a matter of principle like this people can have different opinions, and they are perfectly entitled to hold them. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, took part in any of our Amendments to Clause 2.
LORD SHACKLETON: Yes, I did.
LORD NEWTON: The noble Lord did. I beg his pardon. I thought he did not. That makes my task rather easier because he will have heard what I then had to say. What he is doing by putting forward this Amendment this evening is to reiterate the arguments on general
908
grounds for deleting Clause 2 altogether from the Bill. That is how the position seems to me. If one accepts that it is right that Clause 2 should be in the Bill, it is perfectly logical that we should repeal these sections of the Shops Act. There we are. This is a matter on which there is a difference of opinion between the two sides of your Lordships' House, and, short of repeating all my arguments over again, I do not think there is anything more I can say, except possibly this. So far as cleanliness in food shops is concerned, from the point of view of the public, this is dealt with in regulations under the Food and Drugs Act, and they, of course, apply to family businesses as to any other. So I must recommend to your Lordships that this Amendment of the noble Lord should be rejected.
9.15 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: In dealing with Clause 2 the Government have repeatedly had a very weak case. The noble Lord, Lord Newton (perhaps I may have his attention for one moment), said that the Government felt it would be wrong for them to interfere with family businesses; that it would be wrong for them to stand between a father and a son, daughter or granddaughter as the case may be, who is employed by him. The noble Lord said that again tonight. Yet, he may recall that in the debate we had on Clause 2, when we were dealing with exemptions on grounds of safety, my noble friend Lord Champion drew the noble Lord's attention to the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act, where the Government exercise power even in family businesses, to see that the provisions in regard to health and safety are in fact complied with. The noble Lord cannot have it all ways.
I suspect that the real reason why Clause 2 is included is that the Government feel that if this class of premises is included the machinery of local authority will be completely and utterly swamped. We accept that there is going to be a considerable task to be undertaken. We also accept that, even twelve months after the passing of the Act, even with this period of grace, there is bound to be some time lapse before all these objectives in the classes which the Bill covers are attained. That is no ground whatsoever for completely excluding one class from the provisions of the Bill. It

909
may take longer. It may mean that the Ministry will have power to say, "We will deal first with those that are employing people outside the family." But can the noble Lord say why, other than, a desire not to interfere with the families, the Government wish to exclude for ever, or for as long as this Act is in force, this class of business?
I can think of some businesses which are run by a widow who is being forced to employ people. People with businesses like that will be placed in a more difficult position as regards complying with these provisions than will some family businesses. Some of these family businesses are extremely prosperous. I cannot see why we should give this advantage purely and simply to a family business, perhaps to the disadvantage of a competitor who, because he employs other persons, must comply with the provisions of this Bill. The Government's case right through has not been one of consistency. I do not know whether my noble friend wishes to press this Amendment this evening. If he does, I shall be very willing to support him, in spite of the numbers arrayed against us. But, apart from what my noble friend will do, I hope that the Government will again consider this matter.
LORD NEWTON: The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has again advanced the arguments which were advanced in the debate on Clause 2, in rebuttal of the arguments which I advanced the other day, and which I have advanced again. I doubt whether we shall get very much further simply by arguing about it. We are being perfectly consistent in resisting any attempt to bring family businesses under the umbrella of this Bill. I do not know how many members of the public at large, who are not members of family businesses, or who move in the world of local authorities, or the Factories Act or the Shops Act, know that under the Shops Act the State can interfere with family arrangements about lavatories and washing facilities. I do not know how many members of the public realise that; but I should have thought that most people who discovered that for the first time would think it wrong. I am expressing my own point of view, as one must over a matter of principle like this. I should have thought that most people who heard about it for
910
the first time would think it wrong that the State should interfere with family arrangements about those things. In fact, I rather doubt whether these provisions of the Shops Act have ever been strictly enforced—but that is as it may be.
We have taken our stand on the belief that close members of a family who are responsible for other members of their family are likely to be as concerned about the safety, health and welfare of their relations as the State, or the local authority or an inspector. Quite obviously, noble Lords opposite do not agree about that. They have taken a rather dimmer view of family relationships, and what flows from them. They are entitled to do that. But there we are: this is a difference of opinion on a matter of principle, and I do not think it will be resolved by argument. If the noble Lords opposite wish to divide the Committee upon it, I would suggest that they do so.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am sorry, but I have to continue a bit with this argument, because I think the noble Lord must begin to realise that he is in a weak position, so far as logic, and, indeed, I would say, so far as knowledge of the 1950 Shops Act, is concerned. He is unable to tell us whether these sections have ever been enforced. I doubt very much whether the Government know how far the 1950 Shops Act is, in fact, enforced; and the argument that he thinks that it is perfectly safe to leave family businesses outside the scope of this sort of provision is an argument in favour of repealing the whole of the Shops Act in relation to the family business.
LORD NEWTON: With great respect, it does not leave them outside, and I explained that it does not in relation to hours of work, Sunday closing and things like that.
LORD SHACKLETON: Why is it that one can trust a family in regard to seats, but not in regard to the hours of work? It is an absolute absurdity. I would remind the noble Lord of some of the provisions in the Shops Act. These relate, of course, not merely to hours of work but to things like statutory half-holidays, the keeping of records, the obligation to post the Shops Act and the day off. I do not know whether they are enforced, but the

911
Government should know. Certainly the shops inspectors should know; and I am surprised that, knowing that this Amendment was down, some inquiry was not made with regard to the operation of this section and, indeed, other sections of the Shops Act. It is not only those matters; Wages Council Orders also apply. These involve a number of technical measures, and it is clearly necessary for shops inspectors to help in carrying them out. And suddenly, for no reason that has been given to either House, these particular sections of the Act have been removed.
I ask your Lordships to consider whether it is fair to apply the whole of this Bill to a small business alongside a business which happens to be composed of members of a family. If we are wanting to achieve some sort of justice for the small shopkeeper, surely either this Act should be applied to all or there should be a general exemption of small shopkeepers. I have already pointed out that if a small butcher's shop happens to employ one assistant butcher—as, in fact, does the butcher's shop in my own village—the whole rigour of the Act would
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
apply to that, and the only compulsion of this particular clause is that, if they want to be freed of the need to provide fire certificates, and that sort of thing, they would have to sack that non-family, assistant butcher.
I would suggest that either the Government were unaware of what they were doing—and this seems to be the most likely explanation—or they have totally failed to be honest and straightforward about it. Until now, no explanation has at any time been given that these particular sections of the Shops Act were to be repealed. Unless there is some explanation, or some willingness to recognise this, even though there may be very few noble Lords on this side of the House, I propose to divide the Committee. I should hope that some of your Lordships will consider the case which the Government have put forward as so weak (and this is not just an argument on families: it affects small shopkeepers of all kinds) you may consider coming into the Division Lobby with us.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 8; Not-Contents, 27.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hereford, V.

Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

Champion, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Gosford, E.

Shackleton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mills, V.

Boston, L.

Fortescue, E.

Newall, L.

Carrington, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Newton, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Davidson, V.

Hastings, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Denham, L.

Hawke, L.

Somers, L.

Derwent, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Devonshire, D.

Lothian, M.

Windlesham, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Yarborough, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past nine o'clock.