Sitting of 23 January 1963

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

  Boroughs of Wembley and Willesden
  Mr. Russell: Mr. Speaker, I beg to present two Petitions to this honourable House, both from residents of Wembley and both with the same object—although their wording is slightly different—namely, to protest against the proposal in the London Government Bill to amalgamate the Boroughs of Wembley and Willesden.
  One is sponsored by the Conservative Party in both Wembley North and South divisions and states:
  "Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will take note of the extremely bitter resentment and deep-rooted antagonism felt by the people of the Borough of Wembley towards the proposed amalgamation of Wembley and Willesden under the scheme for the reorganisation of local government in Greater London as it now stands and reject that part of the Bill which would give effect to the merger."
  The other Petition is sponsored by the Liberal Party in Wembley South and states:
  "Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will take note of the view of local residents that Wembley and Willesden are capable without amalgamation of carrying out the functions of Greater London Boroughs, but that if the House insists on Wembley being merged with another authority that authority should be Harrow and not Willesden.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray."
  To lie upon the Table.

  CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND, 1961–62
  Accounts ordered,
  "of the Civil Contingencies Fund, 1961–62, showing (1) the Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March, 1962, and (2) the Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon."—[Mr. Barber.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Foodstuffs (Imports from E.E.C.)
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now give an assurance that he will impose variable import levies on food stuffs imported into the United Kingdom from the European Economic Community, in the event of the United Kingdom not joining the Community.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): It is clearly not appropriate to make any statement about what our policy would be towards a Community of which we were not members whilst we are still negotiating for membership of that Community.
    Mr. Ridley: While many of us hope that the negotiations will still be brought to a satisfactory conclusion, would it not be wise of my right hon. Friend to support the British agricultural markets in the event of failure, and would not he help these negotiations if he made some such plans?
    Mr. Soames: I do not think that there is any question of not helping with the negotiations. If the negotiations are not brought to a successful conclusion, however, our agricultural policy will have to be fitted in with our broad trading policy.

    Tropical and Semi-Tropical Fish Farms
    Mr. Wainwrightasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration he has given to the feasibility of developing tropical semi-tropical fish farms in special reservoirs supplied by water discharged from the Central Electricity Generating Board's power stations.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): None, Sir. If the hon. Member is referring to the Central Electricity Generating Board's recent experiments,

    53
    these are concerned mainly with assessing damage to fish by heated water and not with the possibility of developing fish famous.
    Mr. Wainwright: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this country is not sufficiently interested in fish farms? Is he not aware that if Britain goes into the Common Market the other members will be able to fish up to the beaches of this country and that, therefore, if we do not do something for fish fairmers and take advantage of all these experiments being held by the Central Electricity Generating Board and other parts of the industry, we shall have a lack of supplies of fish?
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: That is a much wider question. There is a later Question relating to this matter.

    Land Drainage and Flood Prevention Works
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in view of the unemployment situation, what plans he has made for allocating more money for land drainage, flood prevention and other works for which he is responsible, so as to utilise more manpower.
    Mr. Soames: The capital investment allocation for land drainage and flood prevention in 1963–64 is to be increased by £½ million, making a total of £8·4 million. This will enable river boards, internal drainage boards, and local authorities to make some increase in their scale of work, and to that extent have an effect on the level of employment in particular areas.
    Sir B. Janner: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. Is he in constant contact with his colleagues to see that as much as possible is expended now so that the unemployment situation may be relieved—to whatever extent it can be? Is he prepared to give an assurance that if he does not get the satisfaction that he wants, he will let us know, so that we can help him in the matter?
    Mr. Soames: I am not anxious about this. A great deal of work on sea defences is already going on and is helping to provide local employment.
    54
    However, most of these projects are long-term and take a good deal of planning. It is difficult to speed them up further.
    Mr. B. Harrison: Can my right hon. Friend say whether an increasing amount year by year has been spent on this work over the last few years?
    Mr. Soames: The amount spent next year will be more than for this year. I am afraid that I do not have the figures for past years in my head.
    Mr. Hilton: Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner)? Many people who normally work on the land are now unemployed. While weather conditions are against employment at the moment, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the possibility of allocating more money for land drainage, as a good deal more could be done to improve land by drainage, and that would also bring welcome relief to the unemployed?
    Mr. Soames: There is the increase of £500,000 in the Estimates which I have mentioned, but that is no answer to temporary unemployment which is brought about by the bad weather over a period of weeks which may come to an end at any time.
    Sir J. Maitland: My right hon. Friend mentioned sea defences. Is he aware that in the vicinity of Skegness, where there is nearly 7 per cent. unemployment, there is a scheme ready for implementation? Will he bear that particularly in mind when considering matters such as these?
    Mr. Soames: Yes, I will gladly look into that.

    Animal Transport
    Mr. Burdenasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) when he expects to receive the Report of the Working Party which is reviewing the problem of animal transport;
    (2) If he will introduce legislation to exercise control over the conditions under which calves in transit are fed,

    55
    and place restrictions on the distance they may be transported when destined for market and for slaughter.
    Mr. Soames: Officials from my Department and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland have prepared proposals for revising and consolidating the various Transit of Animals Orders, and further provisions on the feeding and watering of animals in transit by road, rail and sea. Work on these is proceeding. I do not think, however, that it will be practical to try to limit the distances travelled.
    Mr. Burden: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that these calves are pitifully helpless baby animals and that, if necessary, even the profit motive should be subordinated to their humane treatment? Will not he consider looking into the matter in order to try to insist upon localised slaughter so that these unfortunate little animals do not have to travel great distances without food and proper care? Will he take immediate steps to ban the resale of young calves for at least fourteen days after their original sale?
    Mr. Soames: I do not believe that it is in any way the general practice to transport these calves for long distances. Indeed, it would not be economic to do so. The average value of these calves is only between £2 and £3 and it is only natural for the farmer to wish to send them to a market as close as possible. I agree that there are alterations to be made in the transport arrangements and, as I said in my main Answer, we are proceeding with those alterations. However, it is a fact of farming life that it is not economic to rear these animals on. They are therefore disposed of as early as possible, although I quite agree that we want to see that they are not caused unnecessary suffering.
    Mr. Paget: Is not the truth of the matter that no transport regulations will prevent unnecessary suffering? Is not the solution to this problem regulations that these calves must not be moved alive from the farm until, say, fourteen days after birth, or must be slaughtered on the farm with a humane killer? Although they would then not be so valuable—'they would only be dog meat—the suffering would be limited.
    Mr. Soames: I am certain that if such regulations were introduced—to provide that no calves could be moved from the farm until they were fourteen days old—many calves would be slaughtered on the farm. It is much less cruel for the calves to be slaughtered by experts in licensed slaughterhouses than by the farmer on the farm.
    Mr. Burden: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

    Animals (Ritual Slaughter)
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will consult leaders of the Jewish community and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals with a view to setting up an inquiry into ritual slaughter satisfactory to both bodies.
    Mr. Soames: As my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord President of the Council has said in another place, if the Government were to receive a request for an inquiry which they were satisfied would meet with the requirements of the parties representing the conflicting views in this matter, we should give it sympathetic consideration.
    Mr. Ridley: In view of the widespread allegations and propaganda about ritual slaughter which have been circulated, does not my right hon. Friend think that it would be better, from the point of view of both parties, if there were an official inquiry to put die public mind at rest?
    Mr. Soames: The will of the House was last expressed on this matter as recently as 1956, when a proposal to change the law was rejected on a free vote. More recently, the matter was debated in another place and a Bill there was withdrawn. The Government would have to be satisfied that any proposal for an inquiry was acceptable to the orthodox Jewish community as well as to the opponents of ritual slaughter.

    Millers' Grist
    Mr. Rentonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the millers' grist consisted of home-grown wheat in each of the last

    57
    five months of 1962; and how these proportions compare with those during the last five months of 1961.
    Mr. Soames: With permission, I will circulate this information, which is a table of figures, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Renton: Meanwhile, would my right hon. Friend say whether the millers are using a larger proportion of homegrown wheat in the grist during these winter months? Will he bear in mind that, because of the very large homegrown crop, he will have to meet an enormous bill for deficiency payments unless the millers can help him all they can?
    Mr. Soames: There is precious little difference between the last five months of 1962 and the last five months of 1961—about 29 per cent. in 1962 compared with 30 per cent. in 1961. However, in November and December the proportion was higher last year than it was the year before. The National Association of British and Irish Millers has undertaken on behalf of the millers to endeavour to use at least 1¼ million tons of home-grown wheat in the grist and to exceed that target if possible. The millers are well aware of the obligations which rest upon them.
    Following are the figures:

    PERCENTAGE OF HOME-GROWN IN WHEAT MILLED

    —

    1962

    1961

    August

    …

    …

    18·5

    24·0

    September

    …

    …

    26·1

    31·5

    October

    …

    …

    32·9

    33·9

    November

    …

    …

    34·3

    33·3

    December

    …

    …

    33·8

    28·4

    Mundon Wash Drainage Scheme
    Mr. B. Harrisonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he yet has received from the Essex River Board the revised drainage scheme for Mundon Wash.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: No, Sir. But I understand 'that a draft of a revised scheme is to be discussed jointly by the engineers of the river board and this Ministry during the course of next week.
    Mr. B. Harrison: Can we expect some action to be taken and some work to be commenced on this project within the next six months?
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am sure that my hon. Friend will realise that we shall examine this new scheme with the utmost expediency.

    Livestock, Dartmoor (Helicopter Services)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to recover the cost of helicopter services provided to farmers owning livestock on Dartmoor.
    Mr. Soames: The Government have decided that the Exchequer should bear the cost of the helicopter and aircraft flights requested by my Department for the supply of fodder to farms, on Dartmoor and elsewhere in England and Wales, which are in urgent need and have been isolated by the recent blizzards. I shall be asking the House to approve a Supplementary Vote for this purpose when the final cost is known. The cost of the fodder delivered will be paid by the farmer to his supplier in the normal way.
    Mr. Lipton: Does the Minister realise that these commoners turn out their livestock for the winter without caring how the animals will survive—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]—without caring how the animals will survive, and then expect Service helicopters and voluntary organisations to come to the rescue without themselves making any contribution towards the very expensive costs of the helicopter services? Why should the taxpayer continue to subsidise these people in this way after they have been proved guilty of the grossest possible neglect?
    Mr. Soames: What the hon. Member has said is not at all fair. As he knows, it is rare to have a cold spell as severe as this and lasting so long as this. This was a humanitarian action, 'the cost of which is out of proportion to the value of the animals. However, if we had not carried out this airlift there would have been even more severe losses.
    Sir H. Studholme: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Brixton is a very long way from Dartmoor, and that this is a very complicated matter? Is he also aware that it is a great pity that people who do not fully understand it should make sensational statements? Is he

    59
    also aware that when the thaw comes, it may well be that the losses will be proved to be greater in the lower country, which is enclosed and where the drifts are worse, than on the open moor?
    Mr. Darling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are very grateful for the services which have been provided in this way and for the manner in which he is helping to deal with the expenditure?

    E.E.C. (British Fishing Interests)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements he has made to date in the Common Market negotiations for the protecting of British fishing interests generally, and inshore fishing in particular.
    Mr. Soames: Fisheries are to be the subject of a common policy which has not yet been formulated by the Community. We have made known to them OUT views on this.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the right hom. Gentleman aware that Dr. Mansholt, the Vice-President of the European Economic Community, who is specially responsible for fisheries problems, said that
    "for the members of the Community territorial waters and fishing zones can no longer exist."
    What action is the night hon. Gentleman taking to protect the interests of inshore fishermen in British territorial waters?
    Mr. Soames: Without seeing the context in which that remark was made I could not comment on it. Further, I do not understand it, because at the moment there is no common fisheries policy. It has not yet been drawn up by the Community, and so the words which the hon. Gentleman has read could not apply at the present time.
    Mr. Wall: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that Britain's entry into the E.E.C. would entail negotiating common fishery limits under the Treaty of Rome? Would not he also agree that if our entry into the Common Market is to be delayed he should give serious consideration to extending the three-mile limit which is bearing very hardly on inshore fishermen?
    Mr. Soames: Of course, it would entail negotiation between the present members of the Community let alone the additional members, before formulating a common fishing policy. As to the extent of limits outside the context of the Common Market, this goes wider than the Question, but, as my hon. Friend knows, the question of limits is constantly being kept under review as the circumstances change.
    Mr. Hoy: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware how important this industry is even to the very small communities throughout the land? Certainly in Scotland it is extremely important that their interests should be safeguarded, because their very livelihood depends on it. May we have an assurance that any settlement which is effected will be satisfactory to our home industry, and that it will not be presented with a fait accompli after some agreement has been reached with regard to the rest of the negotiations that are taking place?
    Mr. Soames: Our position with regard to a common fisheries policy is bound to be left open and in no way closed if these negotiations are brought to a conclusion in a reasonable time. There is as yet no common fisheries policy and there would not be a timetable drawn up until after the conclusion of the negotiations.

    Live and Dead Poultry (Importation Restrictions)
    Viscount Lambtonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will relax existing restrictions on the importation of live and dead poultry following the introduction of the fowl pest vaccination policy.
    Mr. Soames: I have decided following the recommendations of the Plant Committee to allow the importation of breeding stock and hatching eggs where this is likely to be of benefit to the commercial stock in this country. Any importation will be made only under strict veterinary control. There will be no relaxation on the importation of poultry carcases as we cannot afford the risk of adding to the extent of infection.
    Viscount Lambton: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the precise

    61
    restrictions on poultry will be relaxed or retained if we enter the Common Market?
    Mr. Soames: The Treaty of Rome provides explicitly for regulations for animal health to be continued within the Community.
    Viscount Lambton: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that these restrictions will remain entirely as they are at the moment?
    Mr. Soames: This is a question of animal health. Whether they will remain entirely as they are at present has nothing to do with the Common Market. Article 36 sets out that regulations in the interests of improving the animal health position An any country may remain in force.

  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

    Cyprus Base (New Works)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Defence if he will state the expenditure on new works completed in the Cyprus Sovereign Base areas since the new Defence Plan was published; and what is the proposed further expenditure there.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): £13·5 million, plus £4 million on new works approved to date.
    Mr. Allaun: If, as is well known, the number of British troops is diminishing there, why are the Government spending millions on new military works? Secondly, would the Minister give the House an assurance that there is no connection with a nuclear or rocket base on the island?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The money is being spent to build accommodation for troops either there or planned to be there.
    Mr. Allaun: Would the Minister answer the second part of my supplementary question? Will he give the House an assurance that there is no connection with nuclear or rocket bases on the island?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: These are barracks and accommodation for our Air Force and for the ground troops stationed
    62
    there. I would certainly give no assurance as between nuclear and conventional weapons.

    Skybolt Missile
    Mr. Wyattasked the Minister of Defence what is now the position with regard to the Skybolt missile.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The United States Government are terminating all production in connection with the Skybolt programme.
    Mr. Wyatt: Will the Minister say what consideration has been given to the possibility of extending the range of Blue Steel and perhaps developing a further type of British air missile? Could he also explain why he thinks he is any more likely to get Polaris than Skybolt?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: That is quite a different series of questions.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Defence if, in view of the renewed failure of the Skybolt missile, he will make a statement on its future role in Bomber Command.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The question no longer arises since Her Majesty's Government have announced their intention not to proceed with the Skybolt missile.
    Mr. Rankin: If the right hon. Gentleman followed Questions he would know that this Question was put down long before that decision was reached. Will he tell us whether he disagreed or agreed with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), who is chairman of the Tory back bench defence committee, when he said that Skybolt was a perfectly efficient weapon? In view of that, why did not the Government take Skybolt when they got the chance of having it? Was it because Polaris, which is still unproved, will be cheaper than Skybolt would have been?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: This Question asked what its future role is in Bomber Command. It has not got one.
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have your guidance on this matter?
    Mr. Speaker: Either it is a point of order or it is not. I do not give guidance free of charge.
    Mr. Rankin: May I have your guidance on this matter, Mr. Speaker? Hon. Members often put down Questions which are not reached until long after they are tabled. Surely we are entitled to an answer to the supplementary question which arises from the Question, whether the right hon. Gentleman seeks to evade it or not?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is not for this reason, that the Chair has no power to compel a Minister to give any answer of any kind, good or bad.

    Nuclear Weapons
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Defence what steps are taken to check that those with access to nuclear weapons in the United Kingdom are free from mental instability, drunkenness or other tendencies dangerous in the circumstances.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: There are stringent selection and training procedures for officers and men dealing with nuclear or indeed other type of weapons. These are our main safeguard. As regards nuclear weapons, no one man can initiate their use.
    Mr. Allaun: If such precautions have to be taken, both here and in America, are not they an admission that a catastrophic accident could, in fact, occur? Secondly, is the Minister certain that it is possible without fail to detect such tendencies?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that it would be very dangerous to have anyone who was drunk or mentally unstable in charge of any weapon.
    Mr. Paget: Can the right hon. Gentleman give this assurance, because I think that it would comfort some people? Can he give an assurance that no single person, however mad, however drunk, however violent or however hard he tried could explode an atomic weapon?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I think the important thing is to ensure that it takes more than one man to explode the weapon, and that is so.

    Brunei Operations
    Sir J. Smythasked the Minister of Defence if he will give further details of the operations in Brunei.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I will, with permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    I should like to add my tribute to the courage and resolution of the Services, all ranks of whom have reacted swiftly and effectively to the calls made upon them, and my sympathy for the relatives of those who have lost their lives.
    Sir J. Smyth: I thank my right hon. Friend for issuing a detailed report, which I am sure we will study with great interest. Does not he agree that the British officers and Gurkha ranks of the l/2nd Gurkha Rifles acquitted themselves superbly in this operation, particularly in the original fly-in, which had to be conducted at night, on a strange aerodrome, and then in a night operation which had to be carried out in an unknown town, in view of the urgency of the situation, thus making the rest of the operations comparatively easy?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The Gurkhas discharged their duties with the skill and courage which we have grown to expect of them.
    Following is the statement:
    As a result of a review of the state of readiness by the Commander-in-Chief, Far East, several days before, forces were at about 12 hours' notice when help was requested by the Sultan of Brunei to deal with the attempt to overthrow his Government which was made early on the morning of 8th December, 1962. The first troops began to arrive by R.A.F. aircraft the same evening, and within a new days a well-balanced force was built up. At its peak this included three major Army units, two Royal Marine Commandos and additional small elements, and 11 ships of the Royal Navy, including supply ships. The R.A.F. was operating short and long-range transport, fighter and photographic reconnaissance air craft. Naval helicopters from H.M.S. "Albion" were also operating in the area.
    The forces were at first under the command of Brigadier J. B. A. Glennie; he was succeeded by Major-General W. C. Walker who became Director of Operations.
    As the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies announced on 20th December, these forces, working with the police forces, had by then restored order in the main centres and secured the release of all hostages. The

    65
    main military operation was therefore completed last month, but security forces have been continuing to round up rebels and to recover arms and ammunition. Their attention has turned more to outlying areas, but operations are at present hampered by rains and serious flooding and are taking second-place to flood relief work. The Services have been giving all-out help in difficult conditions which in some areas are the worst in living memory. A British soldier died on patrol last week while crossing a flooded river.
    Total British Service casualties in the operation were eight killed and 28 wounded. Between 50 and 60 rebels were killed and about 2,000 taken prisoner.
    This military operation shows that our conventional forces are poised ready to deal with any brushfire outbreak, that their reaction time is swift, and that inter-Service co-operation is of the highest order.

    Nuclear Deterrent
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Defence what are the weapons now available to the United Kingdom included in the nuclear deterrent.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The V-bombers equipped with Blue Steel and free-falling bombs.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that several of these nuclear deterrent weapons are likely to be outmoded in the course of a few years? As there is some speculation about the usefulness of the Polaris submarines, has he any proposals to make for the purpose of guaranteeing their adequate defence?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: There is speculation about many things, but this is the nuclear deterrent today. It is an extremely effective one. It will remain effective, and it will be powerfully reinforced with the introduction of the Polaris submarine.
    Mr Shinwell: But has not the right hon. Gentleman himself asserted that several of the existing nuclear weapons will be outmoded in the course of a few years? Undoubtedy there is speculation about the advantage of the Polaris submarine. Does the right hon. Gentleman's mind not torn in the direction of more conventional weapons?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: My mind takes account of both nuclear and conventional weapons.
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Defence what steps he now intends to take to maintain an independent British nuclear deterrent between 1965 and 1970; and what the estimated cost of such measures will be.
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Minister of Defence what is the likely duration of the gap between the time when the Royal Air Force bombers cease to provide an effective deterrent and the time when the Polaris missile will be an operational part of United Kingdom forces; and if he will make a statement on Government defence policy during that gap.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I would ask the hon. Members to await next week's debate.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can the Minister give us any idea in this instance of what the additional cost will be? Can he further say why we want this independent nuclear deterrent? Against whom do we expect to use it?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: We have a deterrent to deter other people from threatening us.
    Mr. Prentice: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in their desperation the Government have resumed a policy which they abandoned when they 6rst decided to buy the Sky bolt missile, namely, to try to develop a British independent deterrent for the years between now and 1970? If the policy was unrealistic two or three years ago, why is it realistic now?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: As far as I know, it has been realistic throughout.
    Mr. H. Wilson: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's references to next week's debate and his previous failure to answer questions about costs, will he undertake that when the debate comes along he will give the House the fullest information about this in every detail—as full information as that which he gave the Tory back bench committee?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I can give the right hon. Gentleman that categoric assurance even before the debate.
    Sir G. Nabarro: In response to the clamour from the benches opposite to

    67
    abandon the British nuclear deterrent, will my right hon. Friend make it clear that any reliance to a larger extent upon conventional forces would inevitably mean the reintroduction of conscription?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: A policy of greatly Increased conventional forces would mean a reintroduction of conscription. Indeed, there are some who urge this as an alternative. Our own policy is to have a balanced force of conventional and nuclear weapons.

    Expenditure
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Defence what is his estimate of the increase in Britain's defence budget in the next few years involved in the decisions taken at the Bahamas meetings.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The strategic nuclear deterrent is expected to take about 10 per cent. of the defence budget next year. It is too early to say anything about subsequent years.
    Mr. Swingler: Does that mean that the decisions were taken at the Bahamas meeting without any estimate being made of what the cost would be to Britain in the next few years?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Forward costings of projects as complex as this are not too reliable, and I would rather not tie myself to a precise percentage.
    Mr. Swingler: What was the right hon. Gentleman's estimate, on the basis of the decision taken at the Bahamas meeting, of the cost of the defence budget for the next five or ten years?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I did not think that a firm estimate could be made.
    Mr. Bellenger: In pinning his faith to this weapon, is not the Minister himself indulging in a great deal of speculation?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Speculation, and intelligent anticipation.
    Mr. H. Wilson: In view of the recent reports of the Public Accounts Committee about the appalling miscalculations of the Defence Ministry on costs connected with missiles and atomic weapons, will the Minister think again about giving the House some information? Is it not a fact that when he
    68
    came bouncing back from the Bahamas and appeared on television he was prepared to make sweeping categoric statements about what it would not cost? Could not the House of Commons be taken into his confidence?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: It is easy to say what it would not cost, but I was asked to compare the cost of this with the cost of Skybolt. As one of the principal reasons for the Americans abandoning Skybolt was that it was impossible to cost it, it is obviously difficult to make a comparison between the two.

    Polaris Submarines
    Commander Courtneyasked the Minister of Defence whether, in view of the considerable operational and technical training problems which will require solution before the first British Polaris submarine joins the fleet, he will approach the United States Secretary of Defence with a view to a loan by the United States Navy to the Royal Navy of one American Mark I Polaris submarine equipped with dummy warheads and provided with adequate United States instructional personnel.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The problem of operational and technical training of crews for British Polaris submarines is among those being discussed with the United States naval authorities. Her Majesty's Government will take whatever steps are necessary in the light of those discussions, but I cannot anticipate their outcome.
    Commander Courtney: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that such a loan would be within the spirit of the Nassau agreement? Would not he perhaps further agree that an extension of this principle might provide a distinct contribution towards bridging the so-called missile gap?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The second part of that supplementary question raises a different point. The Question asks about training in particular. The relations between the Royal Navy and the American Navy are extremely close and cordial. These discussions are going very well. I will consider all these suggestions, but at the moment I would rather await the outcome of these discussions.
    Mr. Mason: But does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that we shall be subject to adopting the American technique of training and the American communications system for the effectiveness of this Polaris force, and will not this mean that the deterrent will be more American than British?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: We do not want to be so jealous that we do not pay the slightest attention to the experience of any other Navy in the operating of these submarines.
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Would it not be better to abandon this rather transparent defence of this nuclear deterrent which is supposed to be ours, and get on with some conventional arms of our own?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: If we were prepared to strip ourselves of all powers to have any form of nuclear deterrent, yes—but that would be a very large issue.

    Submarines (Operational Messages)
    Commander Courtneyasked the Minister of Defence if existing British communications systems are adequate to ensure the reception of operational messages by Her Majesty's submarines when submerged.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Yes, Sir.
    Commander Courtney: In view of the references made by hon. and right hon. Members opposite to recent television programmes, will my right hon. Friend make sure that this technical point is brought to the particular attention of the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown)?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will be studying these Questions.
    Mr. Paget: Communications with Polaris submarines are on the N.A.T.O. network, and are intended to be on the N.A.T.O. network. If they are out of the N.A.T.O. network, does the right hon. Gentleman propose to duplicate the whole of this signalling system? If so, what does he think the cost will be?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Our communications with our own submarines will be entirely within our own control.
    Mr. Wigg: Did the right hon. Gentleman consult the present Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations before making this reply? Is not he aware that in 1959 the Minister then occupying his office rejected Polaris on the specific ground that it was detectable and vulnerable and, in fact, would require a very expensive communications and supply system, which did not exist?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: This Question refers to our communications with our own submarines. In view of the great deal of speculation that has gone on, I want to make it clear beyond peradventure that these communications are under our own control. They are our own, and there is no technical difficulty whatsoever.
    Mr. G. R. Howard: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is the closest possible co-operation, in connection with developments in these measures of under-water communication, between the Americans and ourselves? Will he further say that we will use all these developments for our own submarines when they come into service?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: There are the closest relations. They are being helpful in every way.

    Defence (Higher Organisation)
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the examination of the higher organisation of defence and the possible reorganisation of his Department and the Service Departments.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: An examination is being made to see whether any changes in the central organisation for defence are desirable in the light of developments in our armed forces and military strategy since the current arrangements were announced in the 1958 White Paper. Lord Ismay and Sir Ian Jacob have kindly agreed to assist me with consideration of this problem. The House will, of course, be informed of any changes which the Government may decide to make as a result of this examination.
    Mr. Wall: Is it not a fact that the decision about Polaris could bring up such questions as the future of the

    71
    Royal Air Force and the conventional Navy, and is it not, therefore, the psychological moment to start a long-term investigation into the possible future amalgamation of the Services? Can my right hon. Friend say whether the statement he has made could cover this question?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: It could cover it. But I should not like to give the impression that I was contemplating amalgamating all the Services. The main purpose of this consideration is directed to the central organisation.
    Mr. Shinwell: Was it necessary to appoint a committee consisting of Lord Ismay and Sir Ian Jacob to undertake this task? Is not it the case that in the last ten years we have had eight or nine Ministers of Defence, and have not they made up their minds, on the basis of their own experience, that the existence of three Service Departments, with the Ministry of Defence, is completely outmoded and that what is desirable is a form of integration?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: There might be something in that comment if I had appointed a committee. But it is not a committee. I have asked two very distinguished soldiers, with great experience in the central organisation of defence, to help me in working out the answers to some of these problems.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I recognise that few people have greater experience of the machinery of Government in connection with defence than has Lord Ismay in relation to the period both before and during the Second World War. But can my right hon. Friend give us more indication of what were the terms of reference given to Lord Ismay and Sir Ian Jacob?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Only to the extent that a great deal of consideration—as was said by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell)—has been given over the years to the question of how best the central organisation for defence should be run, including what should be its relations with Chiefs of Staff, the Service Ministries and the rest. There has been a great deal of argument about whether there ought to be more centralisation or less. A number of plans have been made and various suggestions
    72
    advanced inside and outside the Department. In considering them, and any ideas of my own, I thought it would be helpful to call in, not a committee, but two men who, as will be acknowledged from both sides of the House, have special experience in this field, to help me form my conclusions about what. should be the next step.
    Mr. Woodburn: May I ask the Minister whether he is aware that at the end of the last war the appreciation was that in any future war one of the first tasks of the Army would be in connection with Civil Defence? Has the right hon. Gentleman considered all this in connection with the defence of the country? Is he bringing in the matter of the organisation of Civil Defence as part of this large question?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The question of the organisation of Civil Defence is more a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right. These things are linked and I will bear in mind the suggestion he has made.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the Minister make arrangements for a debate on Civil Defence during the coming months?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: It does not quite fall within my responsibilities to arrange the business of the House. But I will pass on the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion through the usual channels.

    Nassau Agreement
    Mr. Masonasked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the ways and means of implementing the Nassau Agreement.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Ways and means are being discussed both with the Americans and in the N.A.T.O. Council.
    Mr. Mason: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that in the development of the Polaris submarine fleet there will be no increase in defence expenditure and no standstill in supplying their requirements OR in the development of the other Services? Secondly, can he give the House an assurance that in the 1970s, by the time when we should have built our small contribution, the

    73
    Polaris submarine will still be an effective deterrent?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I have every reason to suppose that the Polaris submarine will be a very significant deterrent for many years to come. But I certainly cannot give an undertaking to build it free. It is bound to cost money. There is nothing I cam do to prevent that.
    Mr. Willis: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the proposed size of the Polaris programme, or when can he toll Che House what it will be in terms of numbers?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I may not tell the hon. Gentleman that. I hope, perhaps later, to say what is the initial number to be laid down—not at this stage but later on. I do not? necessarily say it is the total number which may be completed.

    Service Pensions
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Minister of Defence how many ratings and other ranks of the three armed Services are in receipt of Service pensions; how many widows of ratings and other ranks receive ordinary Service widows' pensions; and bow many widows of ratings and other ranks receive no Service widows' pensions at all.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: As the Answer consists of a table of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Johnson: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether that information will contain figures showing the number of widows who do not get pensions?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I will try to ensure that it does, and if not I will have the information inserted.
    Dr. King: Will the Minister consider seriously the debate on Service men's pensions and the Royal Warrant which took place just before the Christmas Recess with a view to remedying the hardship suffered by some widows of Service men?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I have studied that debate and will certainly give it consideration.
    The details are as follows:

    —

    Royal Navy and Royal Marines

    Army

    Royal Air Force

    Number of ratings and other ranks in receipt of ser vice pensions

    61,846*

    79,342*

    14,603

    Number of widows of ratings and other ranks in receipt of ordinary service widows pensions

    362*

    2,223*

    651

    The number of widows of ratings/other ranks who receive no service widows' pensions at all is not known.

    * These figures cover cases where the rating/ other rank has or had been commissioned but opted for ratings' rate of pension, this being advantageous.

  ROYAL NAVY

    Polaris Submarines
    Mr. Wallasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty when the first Polaris-carrying submarine will be laid down, and what is the estimated time it will take to bring such a vessel into service.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I have been asked to reply.
    Design work has already started. It is too soon to say when the first submarine will be laid down or in service.
    Mr. Wall: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the so-called missile gap? Is not it well within the capability of British shipyards to launch Polaris submarines and put them into commission before the V-bomber force is obsolete?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: It is certainly within the capacity of British shipyards to put the Polaris fleet into service and I hope at a reasonably early date. As to the missile gap, I do not accept that there is a gap, although no doubt there will be a period when enemy defence is growing in strength and we shall be doing something about that. I think it will be dealt with in the debate.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: When he was in America did the Minister make inquiries

    75
    about what profits American armament manufacturers are likely to make out of the Polaris submarine business?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: No. But I was satisfied that there was immense defence profit to this country from going into this project.
    Commander Courtney: Is it not a fact that"Dreadnought"was laid down three and a half years ago and that she has not yet dived and that this period is about twice the interval taken by the Americans in similar circumstances? Can he guarantee that the Polaris programme will not be lengthened by such a tremendous amount of time?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: In so far as the Royal Navy and the shipyards can provide, I have every reason to believe that we shall get an effective submarine at the earliest possible date.
    Mr. Willis: Can the Minister say at what speed it is intended to proceed with this programme? Are we to start with one, two or three submarines? What kind of programme has he in mind?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: At this moment the design work has started and that is the first thing. As that starts we can begin to place contracts. At the appropriate moment I shall say something about how the streams of production will start. I was not proposing to say so at the moment.
    Mr. Lee: Will the right hon. Gentleman say from what source we shall obtain the rich uranium to power the submarines? Shall we be dependent on American supplies?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that question has been answered. If the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question about uranium I will see that it is answered.

  BRITISH ARMY

    T.A. Forces Association, Glamorgan
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the public protest made by the Glamorgan Territorial Army Forces Association concerning the dwellings in
    76
    which they have to operate; and what proposals he has for improved accommodation conditions for these men.
    The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. James Ramsden): I am aware of a report which appeared in the Western Mail on 20th December, 1962. Brigadier Hurford was referring to a few of the married quarters held by the Glamorgan Association for the Regular Army permanent staff attached to the local Territorial Army units, and I regret that the remarks attributed to him in the newspaper were only a partial report and give a wrong impression of the real state of affairs. The Association holds 48 married quarters, and those built since the War are well situated in residential areas and constructed to modern standards; those criticised were built at the turn of the century and are not where we should put them now.
    Mr. Thomas: Do I understand that the Minister is expressing satisfaction with the accommodation? If not, can he give an idea how long it will be before the quarters described as "slums" will be put out of operation? Will he make a further statement?
    Mr. Ramsden: In the context of the discussion in which the remarks were made reference was being made by the brigadier to the location of these quarters, a few of which are in areas a good deal less fashionable than those in which we build modern quarters. With regard to the Glamorgan association and other associations throughout the country, the modernising and bringing up to date of their quarters is entirely satisfactory.

    Service Widows' Pensions
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for War how much pension an Army captain's widow with one child who lost her husband on 3rd November, 1958, receives; and how much she would receive if her husband had retired on the 1962 Code and died today, assuming in both cases that the widow is 50 years old and the husband had completed maximum service.
    Mr. Ramsden: £183 18s. 0d. a year and £322 4s. 0d. a year respectively.
    Mr. Johnson: Does my hon. Friend think it right or fair that one of two such widows, both of the same age and

    77
    both of whose husbands had the same kind of service, should receive a pension nearly twice as big as that of the other widow?
    Mr. Ramsden: It is very difficult to get this question into perspective by She process of question and answer. We had a debate covering all these matters shortly before Christmas. I would refer my hon. Friend to what my right hon. Friend said on this question in his speech during that debate.
    Dame Irene Ward: Most unsatisfactory.
    Mr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that what my right hon. Friend said on that occasion was wholly unsatisfactory and that the older widows have not been fairly treated?
    Mr. Ramsden: Having gone into this with great care, as my hon. Friends know, I am afraid we still can find no basis on which to distinguish between those who became widows before 1958 and any other category of Service pension.

  SCOTLAND

    Pontoon Dock, Aberdeen
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the complexities mentioned in his letter dated early in 1962 to the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North, relating to the provision of a pontoon dock for Aberdeen, he will now make a statement indicating when the construction of the pontoon dock will commence and how long it will take to complete.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): I understand that the Aberdeen Harbour Board still has the matter under consideration.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this matter has been under consideration far too long? There has been undue delay. Prompt attention to it would go far to solve the unemployment problem in the northeast of Scotland, not only for those who plan the docks, but for those who do the actual work. It would enable
    78
    Aberdeen shipbuilding firms to undertake the building of larger ships which are the fashion of today. Will he see that the matter is expedited?
    Mr. Leburn: I think the hon. and learned Member understands that this is a matter for the Aberdeen Harbour Board. It is considering it. I understand it is also taking into account the question of building a slipway rather than a pontoon dock.

    Firth of Forth (Small Herring)
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has about the large shoals of small herring coming into the Forth and the numbers being destroyed in the Kincardine Power Station cooling system; and what steps he is taking to safeguard the possibilities of a return of the herring to the Forth.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Brooman-White): There are very few small herring in the Forth at present, but sprats have increased substantially this winter. Recently exceptional numbers of sprats penetrated the protecting screens at the cooling system intake and were destroyed. Over a period, however, losses at the intake have been only a very small percentage of catches of herring and sprats in the Forth and it does not seem that they will materially affect the fishery prospects.
    Mr. Woodbum: While the information about herrings seems to be about red herrings in this case, in the case of sprats could the hon. Gentleman take account of the experience at the Portobello Station where there was trouble of this kind caused by mussels blocking up the machinery? Can he see whether this solution can be repeated at Kincardine by reversing the flow in and out?
    Mr. Brooman-White: We are conducting further research into the most effective way of developing a protective screen.

    Maternity Beds, west Fife
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the concern in West Fife due to the continued shortage in the provision of maternity beds; and what steps he intends to take to improve the position.
    Mr. Brooman-White: Yes, Sir; the South-Eastern Regional Hospital Board intends to provide thirty additional beds at the Dunfermline Maternity Hospital as soon as its resources permit, but other schemes now in hand or being planned for Fife must take priority.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that does not get us very far? Can he tell the House how soon this extra provision will be made? Can he say whether there will be any provision in the Glenrothes area of the constituency because in some cases people are having to travel many miles where there are inadequate transport facilities and this is causing very great hardship?
    Mr. Brooman-White: I know that local concern is felt about this, but I cannot say anything further about the date because it is a matter for the regional hospital board to fix priorities.

    Road Improvements
    Mrs. Hartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the capital expenditure involved in projects for road improvements in Scotland for which the necessary plans are complete or at an advanced stage, but which are awaiting the allocation of resources, including both direct Government expenditure and grants to local authorities.
    Mr. Leburn: For trunk road schemes for which necessary plans are complete or at an advanced stage, £8½ million; of these I expect to authorise schemes amounting to about £5½ million in the next six months. I regret that comparable information is not available in respect of classified roads.
    Mrs. Hart: Is it not clear from the figures which the Under-Secretary has given that the expenditure involved is capable of yielding a large amount of employment in Scotland? Would it not therefore be of tremendous assistance in the present unemployment crisis in Scotland if he were to speed the process of giving final approvals and consider extending the programme as it stands at the moment?
    Mr. Leburn: It is for this very reason that I expect to authorise the expenditure of £5½ million in the next six months.

    Regional Hospital Boards (Capital Expenditure)
    Mrs. Hartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total capital expenditure involved in plans submitted to him by regional hospital boards which have not yet been given final approval.
    Mr. Brooman-White: The major projects in the ten-year Hospital Plan are naturally at various stages of preparation, but none is being held up for final approval.
    Mrs. Hart: Is the Under-Secretary aware that, although none may be held up at the moment for final approval, the regional hospital boards have a number of projects with which they are anxious to proceed and which are urgently needed? If a global sum were allocated by the Government for the purpose of expanding expenditure of this kind on the service, that would make a tremendous contribution in the unemployment crisis. Will he ask the Secretary of State to give consideration to this?
    Mr. Brooman-White: The hon. Lady will be aware that additional expenditure on smaller capital works in areas with high unemployment has been authorised. She will also be aware of the steadily expanding expenditure on major programmes in the ten years hospital capital development plan.
    Mr. McInnes: Will the hon. Gentleman indicate the total capital expenditure involved in the nine projects to which he referred?
    Mr. Brooman-White: It varies between the boards' areas and in respect of the very differing priorities and needs, but the hon. Member will know that the programme for Scotland as a whole has expanded from £4 million last year to £5 million this year and £6·8 million for next year.
    Mr. Ross: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we have been asking for and hoping to get an expanded programme of public works in view of the present unemployment situation? Is there any indication from the Government that we shall get that? Is he taking the opportunity of asking the Chancellor to help us in relation to burdens on local

    81
    authorities which might crop up and impede such a programme?
    Mr. Brooman-White: I have referred to what has already been done. I cannot add to that at present.

    Toothill Report
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he now expects to make his final observations on the recommendations contained in the Toothill Report.
    Mr. Leburn: The Toothill Report includes a number of recommendations which the Scottish Council itself recognises require further study by it. Others involve other organisations and agencies, including industry itself. Those which concern matters of Government policy have been and are being most actively studied, and many of them are already being acted upon.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we have been hearing that reply for nearly twelve months now? Does he not realise that this Report has been before us for fifteen months and these recommendations were supposed to help to provide more jobs in Scotland, which needs them badly? Will he say whether or not the Secretary of State believes that to be so? If he does, why is he fiddling over the matter and not coming to a quicker decision in view of the urgency of the time in which we live?
    Mr. Leburn: As I said in answer to the Question, which is about my right hon. Friend's final observations, studies by people other than the Government are here involved.
    Mr. Hoy: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, while we welcome the Toothill proposals, we would welcome the reply of the Government? Does he realise that any failure or slowness in replying to the Toothill proposals does not absolve the Government from taking action of their own and that is what we want them to do?
    Mr. Leburn: The Government have already made observations on the Toothill Report and I am sure the hon. Member knows about them.

  MINISTRY OF AVIATION

    Surplus Britannia Aircraft (China)
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Secretary of State for Air how many surplus Britannia aircraft the Chinese Government have asked to purchase and at what price; and if he will make a statement on the negotiations.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Neil Marten): I have been asked to reply. At the invitation of B.O.A.C. a party of Chinese technicians in this country were recently shown some Britannia aircraft which belong to 'the Corporation and are surplus to their current requirements. The Chinese have not so far made any offer to buy these aircraft.
    Sir C. Osborne: Will my hon. Friend say how many there were of these machines, what they have cost us and whether there has been any pressure from American interests to prevent us from selling these machines which we ourselves do not need?
    Mr. Marten: I am not aware of any pressure from the Americans. If my hon. Friend cares to put down a Question about the precise numbers, I will answer it.
    Sir C. Osborne: On a point of order. The Question asks the Minister how many of these machines there were, and he has not answered it. May I ask for an answer?
    Mr. Speaker: I cannot make the Minister say how many there were. I cannot make him answer.

WAR PENSIONS, NATIONAL INSURANCE AND INDUSTRIAL INJURIES BENEFITS AND NATIONAL ASSISTANCE
The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I should like, with permission, Mr. Speaker, to make a statement about improvements in war pensions. National Insurance and industrial injuries benefits and National Assistance.
I am presenting today a Bill to increase benefits and contributions under the National Insurance and Industrial

83
Injuries Schemes. The Bill will be available in the Vote Office this afternoon together with an explanatory White Paper and a report by the Government Actuary.
It is proposed that the standard National Insurance rates of unemployment and sickness benefit and flat-rate retirement pensions should be increased by 10s. a week for a single person from 57s. 6d. to 67s. 6d. and by 16s. 6d. for a married couple to £5 9s. Allowances for children will be increased by 2s. 6d. a week. These increases mean that the rate for a man and wife with three children will be £8 11s. including family allowances.
The standard rate of widow's pension will also be raised to 67s. 6d. a week. The widowed mother will have her personal benefit increased to 67s. 6d. a week and the allowance for each of her children will be increased by 5s., thus providing allowances of 30s. a week for the first child and of 22s. in addition to family allowances for each other child. In other words, the preference which in recent years the Government have accorded widowed mothers as a class is being extended.
The Bill also provides that a widowed mother in work will always keep at least 26s. of her personal benefit under the earnings rule. This amount will be the difference between benefit for a single person and that for a dependent wife. Taken together with the regulations which I have submitted to the National Insurance Advisory Committee fox raising the earnings limits for widowed mothers from £5 to £6, this represents a substantial improvement for widowed mothers in work.
Under the Industrial Injuries Scheme the standard rate of injury benefit and of the 100 per cent. disablement pension will be increased from 97s. 6d. to £5 15s. a week. The supplementary allowances will also be increased, and the widow's pension of 64s. will become 75s. a week.
I turn now to the timetable. As the House knows, the raising of pensions is a massive and complex task, but I hope that the new rates will operate from the week beginning 27th May. If the Bill is passed into law by the end of February, as I hope with the co-operation of the House it will be, it is my aim excep-
84
tionally to bring in the new higher rates of unemployment and sickness benefit together with injury benefit as from 7th March.
The extra cost in the first full year of the higher rates of pensions and benefits will add about £212 million to expenditure from the two Insurance Funds. In contributory schemes improved benefits involve increased contributions. The minimum total contribution paid by the employed man will be increased from 10s. 7d. to l1s. 8d, and that paid by his employer from 8s. 7d. to 9s. 8d. As to the graduated part of the scheme, the maximum earnings on which contributions are charged will be raised from the present £15 to £18 a week, and the man earning £18 a week or more in the graduated scheme will pay 19s. 4d. a week in all as compared with 15s. 8d. at present, and the employer 17s. 4d. as compared with 13s. 8d. The extra graduated contributions will, of course, count for extra graduated pension. The total contribution for the employed man contracted out of the graduated scheme will go up from 12s. 2d. to 14s. 1d. and that for his employer from 9s. 10d. to 12s. 1d. There will be corresponding increases in other contribution rates. The contribution changes will operate from the beginning of June.
As regards National Assistance, although the rates were raised as recently as last September, I am glad to be able to tell the House that the National Assistance Board intend to make proposals for some further increase in them to come into effect at the end of May, at the same time as the increases in National Insurance pensions, so as to improve again the standard of living of the poorest members of the community.
Meantime, the Bill I am presenting today includes a temporary provision which will have the effect of ensuring that a person whose unemployment or sickness benefit is supplemented by National Assistance will not get less advantage from the benefit increase in March than he would if the Board's proposals were in operation at the time.
So much for the Bill. Now war pensions, which are a matter for the Royal Warrants. Increases will be made in the basic rate of pension for 100 per cent. disablement from 97s. 6d. to

85
£5 15s. The standard rate of pension for war widows will be raised from 76s. to 90s., with appropriate increases in the rates for their children. There will also be increases in the allowances for constant attendance, unemploy-ability and lowered standard of occupation and in the maximum rent allowance payable to war widows with children. I will circulate a list of all the principal changes in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The main new rates will come into operation in the week beginning 27th May. The additional cost to the Exchequer on war pensions will be £15 million in the first full year.
Mr. Houghton: Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that these proposals are being made much later than they should have been made? In view of the bitter winter which we are going through, does he realise how cruel this delay has been? Does he recall that on 26th November we on these benches pressed the Government for an immediate and substantial advance upon the whole front of social security benefits and that the right hon. Gentleman then pleaded that it could not be done before Christmas? Why have the Government left it until now when they had all summer to think about it and October in which to promise it? The statement is being made in January, taking effect over the main field of retirement pensions on 27th May.
May I ask him whether, in a sentence or two, he will throw a little light on the criteria which he has taken for proposing increases of 10s. for single persons and 16s. 6d. for married couples? We on this side of the House had hoped for at least 15s. a week for a single person and 20s. a week for a married couple. That would have given only £3 12s. 6d. for a single person and £5 12s. 6d. for a married couple. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that £5 12s. 6d. for a married couple is still only one-third of the average adult earnings at present?
Further, has the right hon. Gentleman considered, in connection with sickness and unemployment benefits, departing from the principle of flat-rate benefits and introducing wage-related sickness and unemployment benefits in keeping with tine principle of the graduated scheme? While the flat-rate increases
86
might be an interim measure, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the prospect of introducing a wage-related scheme later?
Will the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The right, hon. Gentleman has made a statement covering a wide field of social benefits, and we are entitled in advance of the Bill to ask him a few questions about it. Will the right hon. Gentleman give fresh consideration to the abolition of the earnings rule for widowed mothers? Why does he retain this intricate arrangement for a small body of pensioners to whom we should like to give the maximum posible benefit?
Turning to the effective date for retirement pensions, can the right hon. Gentleman offer any hope at all of shortening the timetable? This, of course, is an added reason for introducing proposals early if they are to take effect from the date at which they would be appropriate. The date 27th May is a long time from now, and there might be bitter weather and grave hardship before that time arrives.
We welcome the promise that the National Assistance Board will introduce additional proposals for National Assistance scales. We also welcome the additions to industrial injury and war disability pensions. If the right hon. Gentleman can briefly answer those points it may assist us—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman had plenty of time to give consideration to what he is doing and I am sure that he can give an answer to these questions in a few sentences.
Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Gentleman said, first, that these proposals are being introduced later than they should have been. I would point out to him that the interval since the last increase has been as short as any other interval since the tidying up operation of 1952.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked what are the criteria for the 10s. and the 16s. 6d. increases for a single person and for a married couple. He said that he had hoped for increases of 15s. and 20s. The increase of 10s. compares with 3s. 6d. required by the rise in prices since April, 1961, to last month, and the rise in earnings over the two years to October, 1962, would justify only a little over 5s. In other words, these increases

87
represent practically three times the rise in the cost of living since the last increase and practically twice the rise in earnings since then.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we have considered wage-related benefits. Of course we have considered them, but surely it is better in the present circumstances to help all? That is what we are doing. We are introducing a Bill which will give assistance to all beneficiaries.
The hon. Gentleman then asked about the earnings rule for widowed mothers. We think that there it is better to do what we are doing and, indeed, as the National Insurance Advisory Committee recommended us to do, to raise the extra benefit that is given per child, which will assist all widowed mothers rather than assisting a relatively small proportion of them by abolishing the earnings rule.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we could hasten the effective date. The House will be aware that on previous occasions effective dates for pensions have been 20 weeks, 24 weeks, 21 weeks, 12 weeks, and 22 weeks after increases have been announced. On this occasion we have made it at 18 weeks and that has only once been bettered.
Mr. Kenton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this further display of practical social justice on the part of the Government will be warmly received by the mass of the people, whatever opinions may be held on the benches opposite about his proposals? Does it follow from what my right hon. Friend has said about the amount of the increases compared with the increases which have taken place in the cost of living since the previous Bill that those who are to benefit under the Bill will, in fact, be getting an increased share of increasing national prosperity?
Mr. Macpherson: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend. I certainly agree that it follows from what I have said that the beneficiaries will be getting an increased share in the national prosperity.
Mrs. Slater: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the mass of the people will remember that it was his Government Who said only a few months ago that there was no need for a rise
88
in the basic pensions and basic benefits? [An HON. MEMBER: "What about your Government? "] We are talking about 1963 and not 1951.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, even though this increase will be a little more than the supposed cost of living, at present the cost of living is rising so much and so many people acre getting so little share of the national cake that they will not relate it and think that it is fair justice?
Further, could not the right hon. Gentleman examine the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), that the whole of the earnings rule could be abolished for widows, who need the money at that time? Finally, has he made any provision to do anything for the forgotten 10s. widows?
Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Lady said that on a previous occasion we said that an increase was not needed. What we have always said is that the value of the pension was higher than it had been at any time before the previous increase. That is so still.
It is a fact that this increase will give an additional share of the national cake to the pensioner.
I think that I have already answered the point about the earnings rule for widows in reply to the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton).
Lord Balniel: Whilst not commenting at all on the merits of an overall flat-rate benefit system, is my right hon. Friend aware that the scale of these increases, which apparently far outstrips the rise in the cost of living and the rise in average earnings, will be very welcome indeed to the country as a whole? Is he aware, in particular, that the emphasis on widowed mothers will be very welcome, and can he say what effect this is likely to have on the contracting-out schemes?
Mr. Macpherson: I am much obliged for what my noble Friend has said. The effect on the contracting-out schemes will be that all those employers who will not be providing the new equivalent pension benefit consequent upon the raising of the maximum of the span from £15 to £18 will have to bring their schemes into line with that requirement.
Mr. H. Hynd: Will the Minister first answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member far Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) about the 10s. widows? Can he say whether any improvements that have been announced today will be deducted from recipients of National Assistance?
Mr. Macpherson: I apologise to the hon. Lady. I omitted to answer her question. No; the present proposals make no provision for the 10s. windows, nor have any previous proposals made provision for them. This, as is generally recognised, is a reserved right resulting from a previous scheme which has now been replaced.
It always is the case that if National Insurance benefits rise by more than National Assistance benefits there is an adjustment between the two.
Mr. Eden: Whilst the whole House must welcome any step taken to improve the lot of retired people and to make it easier for them, is my right hon. Friend aware that many would have wished to have seen us take this opportunity of departing from a flat-rate basis? What consideration was given to trying to introduce a scheme involving a greater degree of selectivity? Could my right hon. Friend also make clear exactly what the proposed increases in retirement pension will cost the country as a whole, recognising that a substantial amount of this has to come from direct taxation?
Mr. Macpherson: I recognise my hon. Friend's views on this and I know that they are shared by many others. The way in which we approached this was that there were claims from several groups for special consideration. We felt that anything that was given to one group would be bound to be at the expense of the other groups. We therefore felt that it was better, at least on this occasion, to stick to the flat-rate increases.
My hon. Friend also asked what the additional cost of pensions will be. The cost will go up from about £800 million a year at the present time to just short of £960 million in a full year.
Mr. Monslow: As well as giving this prelude to a General Election, can the right hon. Gentleman give us the approximate date of the election?
Dame Irene Ward: While I welcome the proposals put forward by my right
90
hon. Friend, and thank him for them, may I ask when we can expect the Government to do some real thinking about giving what is available to those who have the smallest incomes rather than always continuing on the same plan of a flat-rate increase? Is he aware that the Conservative Party has thought very deeply about this for some considerable time and that I was hoping that we might now have got to a position where we might have taken a decision?
With regard to the subject of widowed mothers and what he has said, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that a vast number of anomalies remain to be corrected? Will he tell us when the Government will think about correcting those anomalies? We are having to wait too long for a new policy. What I have said does not, however, detract in any way from my pleasure that these announcements have been made.
Mr. Macpherson: Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know her views, and that she would like to see, as she puts it, what is available confined to those who need it most. I can assure her that the Government are continuing to think about this matter, just as she is doing.
Dame Irene Ward: They are taking too long.
Mr. Macpherson: On the question of anomalies, I am afraid that any scheme of this kind will always have anomalies, but we are progressively ironing them out. I think it is right, however, that we should stick to the preference that is given to war widows and industrial injuries widows.
Miss Herbison: The right hon. Gentleman has said that the extra cost of the benefits will add about £212 million to the expenditure of the two insurance funds. We should like to know how much of that extra cost will be met by the contributions of employees and the contributions of employers and how much under the scheme the Government are again to filch from the graduated contributions which are paid by the workers.
Mr. Macpherson: The extra cost in respect of the Industrial Injuries Scheme will be about £11 million. The contribution that will be made from the

91
graduated pensions scheme is about £44 million and the contribution from the Exchequer will be about £28 million. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will not mind doing that sum, they will find the other figure, which escapes me at the moment.
Miss Herbison: Shocking.
Mr. Speaker: That appears to show yet again the peril of trying to debate these matters without a Question before us.
Miss Herbison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, I should like to point out that I had no intention of debating this matter, but the Minister was asked for a figure which I, and, I am sure, every hon. Member on both sides of the House, would have expected him to have without requiring to obtain information from the Officials' Box. Surely, in courtesy, the Minister ought to give that figure to the House.

PRINCIPAL CHANGES IN WAR PENSIONS

Present rate

Proposed rate

Disablement pensions (100 per cent. assessment):—

ex-private or equivalent

97s. 6d. a week

115s. a week

ex-non-commissioned officers

Increase of 17s. 6d. a week

ex-officers

Increase of £46 a year

ex-regular officers—disablement addition

Increase of £46 a year

The amounts of weekly allowances and terminal gratuities for assessments of less than 20 per cent. will also be increased proportionately.

Constant attendance allowance

20s. a week

25s. a week

30s. a week

37s. 6d. a week

Normal maximum

40s. a week

50s. a week

60s. a week

75s. a week

Exceptional maximum

80s. a week

100s. a week

Unemployability supplement

63s. a week

74s. a week

The allowances payable with this supplement (and with treatment allowances) will also be increased:—

Allowance for wife or other adult dependant

35s. a week

41s. 6d. a week

Allowance for first child

17s. 6d. a week

20s. a week

Allowance for other children

9s. 6d. a week

12s. a week

Allowance for lowered standard of occupation

Up to 39s. a week

Up to 46s. a week

Widows' pensions:—

Widows of ex-privates or equivalent

76s. a week

90s. a week

Widows of ex-non-commissioned officers

Increase of 14s. a week

Widows of ex-officers

Increase of £37 a year

Allowance for each child:—

Other ranks

29s. a week

34s. a week

Officers

£83 10s. a year

£96 10s. a year

Rent allowance for widows with children

Up to 29s. a week

Up to 34s. a week

Pensions for unmarried dependants who lived as wives of men now deceased:—

Other ranks

68s. 6d. a week

82s. 6d. a week

Officers

£203 a year

£240 a year

Orphans' pensions:—

Other ranks:—

Under 15 years

34s. 6d. a week

40s. 6d. a week

15 years or over

46s. a week

54s. a week

Officers:—

Up to 18 years

£128 10s. a year

£149 10s. a year

Adult orphan incapable of self-support

57s. 6d. a week

67s. 6d. a week

Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is ready to give his figure now, but if he is I will let him give it.
Mr. Macpherson: It was a question of making a calculation in my mind. The total income for the Insurance Fund will be £206 million. As I said, the contracted out will contribute £44 million, and the contribution from the Exchequer will be £28 million. I make it that £136 million—no, £134 million—will be contributed by the contributors.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: The Chair has a very difficult task on these occasions. We really cannot debate these matters on statements. We have already spent about 26 minutes on this matter. I take the view that we must go on.
Following is the list:

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
  Industry (Training and Retraining)
  Mr. Proudfoot: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 1st February, I shall call attention to the need for training and retraining in industry, and move a Resolution.
  Oil and Gas, North Sea (Prospecting Licences)
  Mr. Doughty: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 1st February, I shall call attention to the need for the speedy issue of licences for prospecting for and obtaining oil and natural gas in the North Sea, and move a Resolution.
  Regional Town Planning
  Mr. Matthews: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 1st February, I shall call attention to the study of town planning on a regional basis, and move a Resolution.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE
Sir Norman Hulbert: Mir. Speaker, I desire to raise a matter of Privilege for your consideration.
On Saturday, 19th January, at approximately 10.45 p.m. the British Broadcasting Corporation televised a feature programme entitled "That Was The Week That Was". It would appear to bear very little resemblance to any particular week. It was introduced by a Mr. David Frost, who proceeded to name 13 right hon. and hon. Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will allow me to hear this, because I have to be able to hear it.
Sir N. Hulbert: It was said that they had not properly carried out their Parliamentary duties. I have here a full transcript of the broadcast. It is lengthy, and I will summarise it.
I think that I can best illustrate the tenor of the remarks of Mr. Frost by quoting what was said about my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) and the hon. and
94
highly respected Member for Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. Logan). This is it:
"Two of them are very old men, 88-year-old Sir Winston Churchill and 91-year-old David Logan, and old men forget; they even forget the way to Westminster."
Mr. Frost then referred to the right hon. Member for Popular (Mr. Key) and the hon. Members for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle), Norwich, North (Mr. Paton) and Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Fortran), my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Sir B. Baxter)—about whom a third-form joke was made—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Oswald), my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, South (Mr. H. Steward), the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Moody), and for my hon. and Gallant Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir O. Crosthwaite-Eyre) there was projected on to the screen a picture of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), and to myself.
Offensive remarks were made about how long it takes to mention hon. Member's names and there was also a remark made about an hon. Member on this side of the House and a dog. As I said, this broadcast did not confine its attention to any one section in the House and, having checked with one or two hon. Members concerned—and this applies to me personally—the remarks were in many cases completely inaccurate.
There was, finally, a slighting reference to yourself, Mr. Speaker, for it was stated that the B.B.C. would be very pleased to supply you with the photographs of the hon. Members referred to—the inference being that you yourself were unable to recognise them—which would appear rather unfair on you, as they would, presumably, include that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford.
I submit that this performance—if one can call it so—-was not only an unwarranted attack on the hon. Members I have mentioned, but that certain suggestions Which were made were really holding up the House of Commons to ridicule. I have with me a transcript of this broadcast and I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider it and, after consideration, say whether or not you think I have made out a prima facie case of

95
breach of Privilege, or whether, in your view, Che matter should be dealt with with the contempt it deserves.
Mr. R. T. Paget: Since my features were used to illustrate in a most libellous way observations on an hon. Member opposite, may I say that I have communicated with the B.B.C. to tell the Corporation that I will forgive that libel on myself since it took part in such a delightful and amusing programme.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that on this issue the threats by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) to the B.B.C. are matters for my concern.
I am obliged to the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Sir N. Huilbect) for letting me have the script. I will consider his complaint and rule upon it tomorrow.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: Further to the point raised by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Sir N. Hulbert), may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it would be possible to include in your Ruling, after you have had an opportunity of considering it, the cognate question, namely, whether it would be a breach of Privilege on the part of this admirable programme to include this incident in its programme next week?
Mr. Speaker: My powers in the matter do not extend to a cognate question of such a kind.

BILLS PRESENTED

  NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Bill to increase ungraduated contributions and benefits under the National
  96
  Insurance Acts 1946 to 1961, and contributions and benefits under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts, 1946 to 1961, to modify, in connection with the increase of any such benefits, the method of computing national assistance grants for any period before all the increases have taken effect, to modify the widowed mother's allowance under the National Insurance Act, 1946, to amend Section 24 (1) of the National Insurance Act, 1946, as respects conditions for payment of benefits under that section, to alter graduated contributions and benefits under the National Insurance Act, 1959, by enlarging the amount of pay taken into account in fixing contributions and to amend that Act of 1959 as respects non-participating employments; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Niall Mac-pherson; supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Iain Macleod, Mr. John Hare, Mr. Boyd-Carpenter, Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, and Lieut.-Commander Maydon; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 56.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1948 (AMENDMENT)
  Bill to enable a local authority to contribute towards the expenses of bodies carrying on activities outside its area, presented by Mr. Anthony Kershaw; supported by Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Arthur Holt, Mr. Robert Mathew, Mr. George Thomas, Mr. Arthur Skeffington, Lord Balniel, and Mr. John M. Temple; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 8th February, and to be printed. [Bill 55.]

TANGANYIKA (GIFT OF A SPEAKER'S CHAIR)
4.7 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): I beg to move,
That Sir Richard Thompson, Dame Irene Ward, Mr. Bellenger and Mr. George Lawson have leave of absence to present, on behalf of this House, a Speaker's Chair to the House of Representatives of Tanganyika.
This delegation has been arranged in consultation with you, Mr. Speaker. It will be accompanied by Mr. K. R. Mackenzie, Clerk of Public Bills, and I am sure that we all wish our colleagues, as, indeed, they are bound to have, a very pleasant visit to a very pleasant country.
Question put and agreed to.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AND INCITEMENT
4.8 p.m.
Mr. Fenner Brockway: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it an offence to discriminate to the detriment of any person on the grounds of colour, race or religion in the United Kingdom, and to incite publicly contempt or hatred of any person or persons because of their colour, race or religion.
I want to acknowledge that for a fleeting moment yesterday, while we were listening to the tributes to Hugh Gaitskell, I considered postponing the introduction of this Motion today. I did so because I have now introduced it for nine successive years and it may be regarded as a hardy annual. But it was only for a fleeting moment, because those of us who are associated with the Bill do not regard it as a routine matter. We regard it as going to the very depths of human relationships.
The principle of the Bill, in our view, is imperative for human harmony in Britain and the world. The Measure is divided into three parts: the first deals with discrimination in public places, the second discrimination in leases for accommodation and the third incitement of racial hatred or contempt. The proposals in the first part are very moderate. They distinguish between personal and public relationships. We may deplore it, but the State has no right to impose on any individual an association repugnant by mind or instinct. That is in the realm of the individual, but if
98
we believe that racial or religious discrimination is a denial of the essence of the human family and community living, then we should say at least that in public places, particularly when operating under public licence, differentiation should be made an offence in law.
My Bill would apply to common lodging houses, hotels, places for the sale of food and drink to the public, and places of public entertainment or recreation. It has been urged before that there is no need to include hotels. It has been argued that the present law requiring the provision of accommodation to all still applies, but it does not apply to any applicants to hotels who are not travellers.
In addition, I want to draw attention to the inclusion of lodging houses, because this provision might lead to a misapprehension. The advertisements that appear in local newspapers saying, in the case of private lodgings, "no coloureds need apply", probably has a worse effect than anything in this sphere, but the Bill would not apply to private lodgings because we recognise that an Englishwoman's home is her castle.
It has sometimes been argued that there is no need fox my proposed Bill. If any hon. Member argues that he must have a very different kind of correspondence from that which I receive, which shows that there is need of the Bill in relation to hotels and public houses, and to dance halls, where discrimination is particularly practised. That is the first part of the Bill.
The second part of the Bill would apply to the refusal of leases for accommodation on grounds of race or of colour. My correspondence shows that this very frequently occurs. I get letters giving instances in which a coloured man has telephoned an estate agent and has been offered accommodation immediately, but when he has spelt his name and it is African, or when he has appeared at the estate agent's office, he has been refused that accommodation. We had the disgraceful occurrence recently when a leading officer at an embassy in London tried for five weeks to find accommodation here, was promised it immediately, but when it was discovered that he was a coloured person the accommodation, even to an embassy official, was refused.

99
I want very briefly to answer three arguments that are urged against my Bill. The first is that we shall rid this country of racial discrimination by education rather than by legislation. It is agreed that education must be the primary factor, but surely a lead can be given by legislation and so contribute to education.
Secondly, it is urged that our Statute law makes no reference to race, and that to have a law addressed to it would be a recognition of race. The Minister has urged that argument. One might as well say that a law against murder is a recognition of murder. Racial discrimination is admittedly a social evil with disastrous effects on the community; we should recognise that fact by making it illegal.
Thirdly, it is said that legislation has not always succeeded—again, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. Nobody who has been to America during recent years can doubt the salutary effect of the laws of many States there, despite isolated events. This legislation is applied in a number of British Colonies, with a liberating effect. Is the centre of the Commonwealth to lag behind the Commonwealth itself?
The third part of the Bill would make illegal incitement of hatred or contempt on grounds of race, colour or religion, whether by speech, writing, illustration or printing. This has become urgent because of a resurgence of Fascist propaganda in our country. I believe in the freedoms of speech and of Press. I would not ban meetings except when social disorder would occur, or when they were for the deliberate purpose of inciting hatred or contempt of race or religion. I would not ban a newspaper. But just as it is an offence to slander an individual, so it should be an offence to slander a whole race, the social consequences of which may be far more serious than those of personal slander.
A Bill to amend the Public Order Act has already been introduced. My Bill goes further, but I welcome that Measure which has come from the other side of the House. I delayed the introduction of this Motion in order to give the other the first opportunity. I hope that one or other, in so far as it refers to the third part of my proposed Bill, will be passed.
This is the ninth time that I have introduced such a Bill, but always with
100
greater encouragement; every time the support grows. On this occasion we have the support of the Churches, the National Council of Women, educational organisations, the National Council of Civil Liberties, the Jewish community, the Labour movement, the Liberal Party, Conservative clubs at universities, and many Conservative Members.
On previous occasions the House has agreed to the First Reading and then a group of hon. Members has obstructed the Bill at further stages. I do not ask the House to accept every Clause, but I do ask it to accept the principle that the law of our land should make public racial discrimination and incitement an offence. And I challenge those who oppose that principle to divide against this Motion today. Let them have the courage to do that openly rather than to resort to methods of obstruction at a later stage. If it is logical to give leave today, I ask that they shall not oppose Opportunity for discussion at later stages. Otherwise, let them try to defeat the Bill today—I challenge them to do so.
If that challenge is not taken up, I ask the Government to provide facilities for a Bill that has been given its First Reading more often than any Bill that has ever been introduced into this House. It embodies a principle necessary for the good of the nation and of the world, and I have no doubt that public opinion supports it. I have no doubt that the majority in the House supports it. I hope that a Division will be challenged, so that we may know that that is so.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Fenner Brockway, Mr. James Griffiths, Mr. A. Creech Jones, Mr. Grimond, Sir Godfrey Nicholson, Mr. Arthur Tiley, Mr. Anthony Greenwood, Mr. Julian Critchley, Mr. Leslie Hale, Sir Leslie Plummer, Mrs. Barbara Castle, and Mr. Eric Lubbock.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AND INCITEMENT
Bill to make it an offence to discriminate to the detriment of any person on the grounds of colour, race or religion in the United Kingdom, and to incite publicly contempt or hatred of any person or persons because of their colour, race or religion, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 8th February, and to be printed. [Bill 57.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  LONDON GOVERNMENT [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to local government and the functions of local authorities in the metropolitan area, it is expedient to authorise—

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

  (i) of any expenses incurred by any Minister under that Act; and

  (ii) of any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other enactment;

  (b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by any Minister under that Act;

  and in this Resolution the expression "Minister" includes the Board of Trade.
  Resolution read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.
  4.20 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: I wish to say only a few words on this matter. When we were dealing with the Money Resolution in Committee, I asked the Government what would be its effect on certain Amendments which hon. Members might wish to move in Committee. I had in mind particularly Amendments which might make it possible for membership of the Greater London Council to be a salaried post, Amendments which would make it possible for help to be given to the truncated counties of Essex, Kent and Surrey at the expense of the Exchequer rather than at the expense of the inhabitants of Greater London, and Amendments which might make it possible for the Government to help in any compensation that it might be appropriate to pay to the staff of the London County Council or other bodies affected by the Bill.
  I asked whether Amendments of that kind would be in order under the Money Resolution as drafted. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing
  and Local Government was not able to give me a firm reply. I make no complaint about that, because the exact significance of a Money Resolution is always a difficult and complex matter. Since then the Minister has been kind enough to communicate with me about it.
  I want now to state what I believe the position to be and what I hope the Government may be able to confirm. I believe it to be as follows: that it is not possible, of course, for the Government to give firm advance rulings on something which is within the province of the Chair; that the Government cannot positively say that this, that or the other Amendment will be in order, but they can say that they have so drafted the Money Resolution than it is their intention that such Amendments should be in order and that to the best of their belief such Amendments would be in order with the Money Resolution drafted as it is.
  I understand the position today to be that the Money Resolution is, in the Government's view, so drafted that Amendments dealing with the three topics I have mentioned—salaries for members of the Greater London Council, Exchequer payments to the truncated counties, and Exchequer assistance for compensation to staff are matters which could properly be discussed by means of Amendments in Committee. They are matters in which a great many hon. Members are interested and I hope that the Government will be able to confirm that the position is as I have described it.
  4.23 p.m.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): Subject always to the discretion of the Chair, I can confirm that the advice I am given is that these three subjects are covered within the Money Resolution and, therefore, can be debated.
  Question put, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution:—
  The House divided: Ayes 240, Noes 185.

  Division No. 23.]

  AYES

  [4.25 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Balniel, Lord

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Allan, Robert (Partington, S.)

  Barter, John

  Bidgood, John C.

  Allason, James

  Batsford, Brian

  Bitten, John

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Bishop, F. P.

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

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Black, Sir Cyrll

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythneshawe)

  Partridge, E.

  Bossom, Hon. Clive

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Peel, John

  Box, Donald

  Holland, Philip

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Braine, Bernard

  Hollingworth, John

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Brewis, John

  Hopkins, Alan

  Pitman, Sir James

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.Col. Sir Walter

  Hornby, R. P.

  Pott, Percivall

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

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

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

  Bryan, Paul

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Buck, Antony

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Bullard, Denys

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Pym, Francis

  Burden, F. A.

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Ramsden, James

  Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Rawlinson, Sir Peter

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  James, David

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Rees, Hugh

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Renton, Rt. Hon. David

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Chataway, Christopher

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Roots, William

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S)

  Ropner, Col. Leonard

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

  St. Clair, M.

  Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Sharples, Richard

  Cooke, Robert

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Shaw, M.

  Cooper, A. E.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Shepherd, William

  Cordeaux, Lt-Col. J. K.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Kirk, Peter

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

  Corfield, F. V.

  Kitson, Timothy

  Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

  Costain, A. P.

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Coulson, Michael

  Lambton, Viscount

  Speir, Rupert

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Crawley, Aidan

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Stodart, J. A.

  Cunningham, Knox

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Dance, James

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Teeling, Sir William

  Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

  Longbottom, Charles

  Temple, John M.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Drayson, G. B.

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Duncan, Sir James

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

  Eden, John

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

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

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&N. Ayrs)

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, w.)

  Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

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

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Turner, Colin

  Fell, Anthony

  Maddan, Martin

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Maginnis, John E.

  Tweedsmuir, Lady.

  Foster, John

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Marlowe, Anthony

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Gammans, Lady

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Gardner, Edward

  Marshall, Douglas

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Marten, Neil

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Walder, David

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Walker, Peter

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Mawby, Ray

  Wall, Patrick

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Gough, Frederick

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

  Webster, David

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Mills, Stratton

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Green, Alan

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Gurden, Harold

  Morgan, William

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Morrison, John

  Wise, A. R.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Harvey, Sir Arthur vere(Macclesf'd)

  Neave, Alrey

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Woollam, John

  Hastings, Stephen

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Worsley, Marcus

  Hay, John

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hendry, Forbes

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Mr. J. E. B. Hill and

  Hiley, Joseph

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Mr. McLaren.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)

  Blyton, William

  Ainsley, William

  Bence, Cyril

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Albu, Austen

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Boyden, James

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Benson, Sir George

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Blackburn, F.

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  104

  105

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Hoy, James H.

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Prentice, R. E.

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hunter, A. E.

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Callaghan, James

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Probert, Arthur

  Carmichael, Nell

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Caetle, Mrs. Barbara

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Rankin, John

  Chapman, Donald

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Cliffe, Michael

  Jeger, George

  Rhodes, H.

  Collick, Percy

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

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

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Darling, George

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

  Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Ross, William

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Kelley, Richard

  Russell, Ronald

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Shinwell. Rt. Hon. E.

  Deer, George

  King, Dr. Horace

  Short, Edward

  Dempsey, James

  Ledger, Ron

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Diamond, John

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Dodds, John

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Driberg, Tom

  Lipton, Marcus

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  Loughlin, Charles

  Small, William

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Lubbock, Eric

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Snow, Julian

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  McCann, John

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  MacColl, James

  Steele, Thomas

  Fernyhough, E.

  McInnes, James

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Fitch, Alan

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Stonehouse, John

  Fletcher, Eric

  Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

  Stones, William

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  McLeavy, Frank

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

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

  Forman, J. C.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

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

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Swingler, Stephen

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Manuel, Archie

  Symonds, J. B.

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

  Mapp, Charles

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Ginsburg, David

  Mason, Roy

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mayhew, Christopher

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

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Mellish, R. J.

  Thornton, Ernest

  Grey, Charles

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Milian, Bruce

  Timmons, John

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Milne, Edward

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Warbey, William

  Gunter, Ray

  Monslow, Walter

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Moody, A. S.

  Whitlock, William

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Moyle, Arthur

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Hannan, William

  Neal, Harold

  Willey, Frederick

  Harper, Joseph

  Oram, A. E.

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  Healey, Denis

  Oswald, Thomas

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

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Padley, W. E.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Paget, R. T.

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Hilton, A. V.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Holman, Percy

  Parker, John

  Zilliacus, K.

  Holt, Arthur

  Parkin, B. T.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Pavitt, Laurence

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Mr. Redhead and Mr. Lawson

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Peart, Frederick

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL

  (CLAUSE 1 AND SCHEDULE 1
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

  Clause 1.—(LONDON BOROUGHS.)
  4.35 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, to leave out "in the case of an outer London borough".
  The ellect of this Amendment can be stated simply. The Clause, is it stands at present, provides in subsection (2) that the Minister shall bring the proposed new
  106
  London borough into existence by means of what is called an incorporation order. Although they are all to be brought into existence by an incorporation order, a distinction is made between inner London and outer London boroughs, inner London boroughs being those covering areas now covered by the London County Council, and outer London boroughs being all the rest.
  The Bill provides that in the case of an outer London borough, and only in such a case, the incorporation order shall make provision for a charter for this new outer London borough which charter
  "may include with any necessary modifications all or any of the provisions of the charter or any letters patent granted to any existing

  107
  borough the whole or part of which falls within the London borough's area."
  That is to say, as the Bill now stands—and this is a proposition with which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will disagree—if a new borough of Wembley and Willesden were to be created, that would be an outer London borough, and the incorporation order would make provision for a charter which may incorporate any of the provisions of any charter, and so forth, which Wembley or Willesden now enjoy. But with regard to an inner London borough—a borough covering an area now in the London County Council—there is to be no such charter.
  The purpose of my Amendment is to remove that discrimination, to make certain that the incorporation orders of all the boroughs shall make provision for a charter. It is easy enough to see why the discrimination is in the Bill. It is because inner London boroughs are composed of what are now metropolitan boroughs which have no chanter, which are mere creatures of statute, whereas outer London boroughs, some—indeed, I think all—have a charter or some comparable instrument.
  But although this is a distinction in their past, is it right, when it is proposed to create a totally new form of London government, to draw from the very beginning a distinction at least in dignity and possibly in powers as well between two groups of boroughs which are supposed to be in all other respects on an equal footing?
  It is not a legitimate objection to my Amendment to say that if the Minister in the incorporation order for an inner London borough makes a charter he cannot incorporate An that charter the provisions of any existing charter because there is not such an existing charter for an inner London borough. As the Bill now stands he is not obliged to do that. The only thing he is obliged to do is to provide a charter. He may, when providing a charter, include in it provisions of existing charters. But that is not obligatory, provided the charter is obligatory for outer London boroughs. Including in the charter, with modifications, the provisions of existing charters is something that he may do.
  We can, therefore, properly say that it would be reasonable and practicable
  108
  to amend the Bill so that he has got to provide a charter for every borough, and where it is a borough composed of metropolitan boroughs which have no existing charter he neither can nor need include in the new charter provisions of existing ones. He has got to make a charter from the start.
  There is nothing impracticable in the proposal, but the Government may ask, "Is it necessary? Metropolitan boroughs have apparently managed without charters during the sixty years of their existence. Now that they are to be amalgamated and made into proposed boroughs of the new Greater London, surely they can equally well get along without charters."
  To counter that argument we have to consider, first, the question of dignity and, second, the question of powers. Even if it were a matter of dignity alone, there would be a case for equipping all the boroughs of the new Greater London with the same dignity and status. It is impossible to say that this dignity is such an empty thing that the inner London boroughs ought not to want it, because, if it is as empty as that, why is it preserved in the Bill for the outer London boroughs? I do not think it desirable that dignity should be disregarded in these circumstances.
  All these new boroughs are being set up, and the very working of the Bill will depend upon a great deal of cooperation, not only co-operation between one inner London borough and another and between one outer London borough and another but co-operation between inner and outer. One should not create an arrangement from the start by which it is presumed that one set of them, the outer London boroughs, have some slight advantage in dignity or prestige over the inner London boroughs.
  This might prove quite a vexing question in a great many matters. If the Bill is to work at all, there will have to be frequent conferences between different boroughs. Such questions as, for instance, which borough is to convene a conference will arise. If there are meetings of representatives, what will be the order of precedence? One reason why, in diplomatic affairs, there is careful observance of rules of protocol is that, if there are not clear rules of precedence and protocol when conferences are held, it is easy to give offence.

  109
  Presumably, the London boroughs will, for their own convenience, have to devise some such rules of precedence and protocol, not with too much fuss but with as much as is necessary. If there are to be such arrangements under the Bill as it now stands, the outer London boroughs will be able to say from the start that they must be regarded as in some sense senior or more dignified than the inner London boroughs because they have charters and the others have not. I suggest that this is not an inconsiderable argument.
  There is also the question—perhaps more difficult to answer—as to whether it will make any difference to the powers of the boroughs that some will have a charter and some will not. Here I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), who has drawn my attention to what I regard as a significant passage in this connection in a judgment of Mr. Justice Bennett given in a case which went on from October till December, 1942, the case of the Attorney-General v. Leicester Corporation.
  The point at issue in that case was whether the Leicester Corporation had power to do certain things, complaint having been made about its having done them. The relevant passage in Mr. Justice Bennett's judgment is as follows:
  "The corporation"—
  that is, Leicester Corporation—
  "were constituted by royal charter, and it is well settled law that, generally speaking, such a corporation can do anything that an ordinary individual may do".
  That appears to be the situation as regards anything coming into existence by charter. A mere creature of statute, on the other hand, as a metropolitan borough is or as the inner London boroughs will be, according to the Bill as it now stands, can do only such things as the statute specifically permits it to do.
  Very often, in local government, this does not matter much because, even if a local authority which owes its existence to a charter has, by virtue of that fact, power to do a good many things, it often just has not the money to do them. It has enough money to perform its statutory duties, but that is all. However, a situation might arise
  110
  in which a borough had an exceptional source of funds. It might have revenues from property it owned, it might have benefactions, it might have funds other than those which come to a local authority in the ordinary way.
  If such an authority is incorporated by charter, it can use its funds to do anything which an individual may lawfully do, but if it be a borough which owes its existence merely to statute, not being incorporated by charter, then it can do only those things which the statute expressly permits it to do. It seems to me, therefore, that, at first sight, and to a layman's judgment, a difference is being made between the outer and the inner London boroughs not only in dignity, but in powers, also. I can see no real justification for it, and it was for that reason that I moved the Amendment.
  4.45 p.m.
  This is, I suggest, an Amendment which the Minister can concede without great difficulty. AH that is required of the Government, if they agree to it, is that they shall go to the little extra trouble of providing charters for the proposed 12 inner London boroughs as well as for the 20 outer London boroughs for which charters have to be provided anyhow. This, compared with the whole labour of reorganising London government, is not all that much.
  As the Minister knows, we are now beginning the Committee discussion of a Bill on which there is no general agreement in the House. It is not our intention on this side to delay the passage of the Bill frivolously or vexatiously, but we are fully entitled to say that the Government cannot expect us to help its passage. We regard it as a Bill of which very grave criticisms can be made. Even if it is discussed, as we hope to discuss it, seriously and without frivolity, it is bound to take a long time.
  In view of this, the Minister will, no doubt, be anxious to get as much good will as he can, or, at least, not by inconsiderate behaviour to turn the natural opposition which we feel to the Bill into a rancorous hatred of anything which may be proposed during the Committee stage. If that is what the Minister wants to do—and, if he is wise, it will be what he wants—he can take the opportunity at once of showing that he

  111
  is ready to accept Amendments to the Bill.
  Compared with the great issues which will come later, this is not a major question, but it is, I trust the Committee will agree, a matter worth some discussion. It has the further advantage that it gives the Minister the opportunity to show himself as conciliatory in regard to such parts of the Bill at least on which conciliation is at all possible.
  Mr. William Roots: The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) has raised an interesting point and, no doubt, my right hon. Friend will deal with the Amendment in detail in a few minutes.
  As regards the reported case on which the hon. Gentleman relied, a passage from which he read, I submit that the whole gist of the decision, if I recollect aright, lies in the words "royal charter". The Minister will not create a royal borough. He will be creating a borough by charter under either the Municipal Corporations Act or succeeding Acts. If I recollect aright, the distinction relates to a royal charter, in other words, a common law charter which gives certain powers, whereas a charter issued under a statute, which is what the Minister would issue, would create a corporation which would be in no different position from that of any other borough or statutory creature.
  Mr. G. W. Reynolds: I put two points in support of the Amendment. Later, when we come to the Schedule dealing with repeals, we shall, I understand, subject to anything we may learn—there is much to learn about some pants of the Bill and there are many questions to be asked—be wiping out, in effect, the London Government Acts.
  If we do 'that and go into many aspects of the law to bring the present L.C.C. area into line with the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1933, where they differ from these provisions, we will remove what is to a certain extent an anomaly but something which has grown over a long period in the way that the L.C.C. and the metropolitan boroughs were created, I cannot see why we should maintain it in respect of the 12 new metropolitan boroughs because of
  112
  a whole range of occurrences which happened in the past.
  We are getting rid of many reasons which caused that situation to exist. We should put the L.C.C. area boroughs in the same situation as boroughs which will exist in future in the geographical counties of Essex, Middlesex, Surrey and Kent. We should put them on the same basis as boroughs in the rest of the country.
  This Bill will mean the perpetuation of a system whereby boroughs situated in the heart of the Metropolis are in a different position from boroughs anywhere else. We shall see in years to come some of the existing small boroughs in other parts of the country demoted to parish councils with a mayor, but they will still have a charter. In the past, I have said that the powers of metropolitan borough councils are more akin to parish councils than to a non-county borough outside London. Huge metropolitan boroughs with populations of over 200,000 will not be allowed to have a charter. Some people have deep feelings on this matter. Some of the existing boroughs, with a population of 2,000, with a charter will be rural boroughs in future and will have the powers of parish councils, but will keep their charter, yet 200,000 people in the centre of London will be denied a charter. This is a denigrating aspect of local government in the Central London area.
  I understand that one of the main reasons for the Bill, which, obviously, will occupy us for many weeks, is what is alleged to be a lack of interest in local government, not only in the Greater London area but all over the country. We are told that something will have to be done to liven it up, to stimulate more interest in it and, although I do not entirely agree with this, to try to persuade better people to stand for election to local authorities. If this is so, surely we should do everything we can to reorganise and reform local government in order to give local authorities the highest possible status. I cannot understand why we should perpetuate a system of having some second-class boroughs in central London compared with boroughs in the geographical counties of Essex, Kent, Middlesex and Surrey.

  113
  I hope that the Minister will accept this Amendment and will realise that the new metropolitan boroughs should all have the same status even if they do not all have exactly the same powers.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): I am in a difficulty here. I have been delving as deeply as I could into this very tangled field, and I intended to try to meet the Amendment by a direct acceptance of it on behalf of the Government because I recognise that the question of dignity is important. But, unfortunately, I have to tell the Committee that, with the best will in the world, it is beyond my power to advise it to accept the Amendment.
  Let me explain the problem. As the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) clearly said, there is this distinction. The metropolitan boroughs, which are the elements composing the inner London boroughs, are the creatures of statute and owe their origin to an incorporation order under statute, whereas each of the outer London boroughs contains at least one unit of local government which has been the recipient of a charter from the Sovereign. It is not for a Minister to ignore that one particular group contains an element which had a charter nor to intrude on the prerogative by laying down in a Bill that a charter should be given when no charter has been given before.
  If it were that problem alone, I should not be in difficulty. It would be possible for me to say, "This is not for the Government, nor for the House, but there should be no difficulty, in due course, in a petition being made by an inner London borough when created". The problem is that the prerogative is not used to reproduce provisions that have already been set out, as they have been for the inner London boroughs in the incorporation orders originally setting up the metropolitan borough councils. Obviously, the charters which matter so much to those who hold them would not be considered so important if they were merely rubber stamps reproducing automatically provisions that had been passed, in the case of the metropolitan borough councils, by statute at the end of the last century.
  This is a real difficulty, and I can comfort the Committee only by saying
  114
  that there is certainly no distinction in dignity intended either by the Bill or by the Government between inner and outer London boroughs. I hope that, having explained the genuine difficulty, the Committee will not emphasise a distinction that is not intended.
  I am advised that there is absolutely no difference in powers between the inner London boroughs and the outer London boroughs as proposed by the Bill. The hon. Member for Fulham gave a quotation. He is not, I think, a practising lawyer. I was trained in Roman law many years ago, but I am not a practising lawyer and I must lean on the advice given me that there is no difference in substance in the powers of the inner London boroughs.
  I hope that the Committee will accept that, with the best will in the world, I cannot advise it to accept the Amendment. It is open to any citizen of Her Majesty or to any group of citizens constituted, as they will be, in inner London boroughs to petition for some mark of favour. It is not for me to go further than to say that or to offer any prospect. I hope that hon. Members will recognise that there is a real difficulty which cannot be overcome. The heart of the difficulty is that the prerogative is not used to reproduce provisions that have already been made.
  Mr. Ede: I am wondering how it is possible to justify rejecting the idea behind the Amendment, because there is no doubt that a borough which has a charter has come into existence by a very different process from the metropolitan boroughs, which were once described to me by Lord Morrison of Lambeth, before he was ennobled, as being little better than glorified parish councils.
  The obtaining of a charter is a process which, outside London, has been the ambition of most thriving and growing local authorities, and the incorporation of the inhabitants after an inquiry by the Privy Council is undoubtedly a recognition of sound local government in the area which receives the charter. I took part in all the preliminaries for the obtaining of a charter for the Borough of Epsom and Ewell, which has the great distinction of being the only borough to be torn in two parts by the Bill.

  115
  5.0 p.m.
  To obtain the charter, we had to present a petition from the inhabitants and from the then urban district council An inquiry was held by the Privy Council, not by the Minister of Health. In the end, having proved that we had the resources of men and money that would enable local government to be adequately conducted under a charter and having proved that we had taken certain steps with regard to the maintenance of the amenities of the area and for building up adequate public services, the inspector sent down by the Privy Council recommended to 'the Crown that the charter should be granted. There were then negotiations between the Privy Council and the representatives of the borough as to the exact form that the charter should take.
  There is no doubt that that gives to local government in an area a standing that is not to be obtained merely by calling the place a borough. It is an incorporation of the inhabitants. The peculiar thing is that the incorporation is of the mayor, aldermen and burgesses. It is not incorporation of the town council. It is the incorporation of the inhabitants and gives them a recognition of sound government in the past and conveys the belief of the Privy Council that that will be carried on under the new status that the inhabitants are to receive.
  It is important to recognise that it is not the town council, but 'the inhabitants, who are incorporated—the mayor, aldermen and burgesses. Apparently, the only job of the councillors under the charter is to elect the aldermen. It is an interesting survival of the way in which great cities have been administered during the ages down to the Municipal Corporations Act, 1835. I hope that the Minister will be able to find a way in which this peculiar and valuable status can be conferred on these great new boroughs with a quarter of a million people that he is bringing into existence by the Bill.
  I wonder whether a statement could be included in the Bill that it shall be the duty of the new Council, when it comes into existence, to apply to the Privy Council for a charter, to permit the continuation of the process which, undoubtedly, can be followed now. I
  116
  suppose there is no reason why the Borough of Paddington should not apply to be made a borough under the ordinary process that I have described. I hope that the Minister will not give up and leave us with the anomaly of having the inner part of London unincorporated with the outer fringe incorporated.
  Sir K. Joseph: The right hon. Gentleman speaks with such authority that when he makes a mistake I must correct him at once. The inner London boroughs will be full boroughs in the sense that all their inhabitants will be incorporated. They will be incorporated under the incorporation order. They will not be, as the metropolitan borough councils were, purely incorporated as to their councils.
  Mr. Ede: I still hope that they will be incorporated through the Privy Council, which is the essential part of incorporation in the rest of the country. It is securing the recognition by the Privy Council and, through the Privy Council's recommendation, by the Crown of the status and standard of the government that has been carried on in that area.
  Mr. Albert Evans: From his experience as a Privy Councillor, can my right hon. Friend say whether, in considering such an application, the Privy Council would give weight to the support that the Minister of a Department might give to an application? When the Minister seems favourably disposed, I wonder whether his support would weigh with the Privy Council.
  Mr. Ede: From my experience, what happens is that the various Government Departments are consulted. If they object on the ground that in their view a district has not been well governed, they can appear at the inquiry into incorporation and can state their views.
  I am certain that both sides of the House of Commons are anxious that in the new local government of Greater London we shall have the advantage of as high a status, in the eyes of all the people who are competent to express an opinion of the bodies to be created, as we can get. I hope that the Minister will not despair of finding a way in which, on the recommendation of the Privy Council, a charter may be submitted to the Crown and of ensuring that these boroughs are encouraged to present such a petition.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: I do not consider that the Minister's arguments hold water. My view is that it is quite possible to give effect to the wishes of the Committee in this matter and that the difficulties suggested by the Minister are not real.
  It is true that historically, some of the boroughs outside London have had charters and that the boroughs inside London are metropolitan boroughs created by Act of Parliament. In the Bill, we are proposing to create an entirely new set of boroughs. For example, as the Minister has said, it is not the case that all the new boroughs have a charter with respect to the new areas. The Minister's words were that all the outer boroughs contain some unit to which a charter was given.
  Those units, however, are being destroyed. Therefore, the validity of the charter to one of those units is being destroyed because the unit itself is ceasing to exist and a new area of local government is coming into existence to which any existing charter ceases to have application. Therefore, the idea that there is some sanctity in a charter given in the past to an area of local government which will now cease to exist as an independent area must be completely wrong.
  The second fallacy is this. The Minister has referred to the prerogative. Either Parliament, through the Minister, can make provision for inner boroughs as well as outer boroughs having a Charter, or it cannot. Having heard the Minister's speech, I am not clear what the position is. I should have agreed with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that hitherto, the granting of a charter was an act of the Privy Council and not something that was done by Parliament.
  Mr. Ede: My understanding is that the grant of a charter is the act of the Crown, which is advised by the Privy Council. The petition is presented to the Privy Council, which starts the whole of the proceedings going.
  Mr. Fletcher: I entirely agree. Therefore, I ask myself what is the meaning of the words in the Bill that the Minister shall make provision for a charter for a borough. That is entirely novel. Surely, this is the first time that Parliament has been asked to enact that a
  118
  Minister shall make provision for a charter for a borough.
  Does that mean that in future the discretion of the Crown, on the advice of the Privy Council, depends on the whim of the Minister, whether he will or not ask for the provision of a charter for a borough? It may mean that. If it does mean that, then it is equally possible for the Minister to make such provision in the case of an inner London borough as for an outer London borough. Therefore, it is complete nonsense for the Minister to say that what he proposes to do for outer London boroughs he cannot do for inner London boroughs because he is prevented by the royal prerogative. But even if it were necessary to refer to the prerogative it would not be the first occasion on which Ministers had advised Her Majesty to renounce the prerogative in order that a sensible and proper provision might be made in an Act of Parliament.
  It does not seem to me that the Minister has really given any thought to this matter at all. It is quite obvious, as my hon. Friend argued so cogently, and as, I think, the Minister concedes that it is abundantly desirable that in these new provisions we are making about the greater London area there should be an absolute equality of status, of power, of dignity, and of everything else, between all the various units which are going to be incorporated in the London Government area.
  For us to start out on the footing that there is some discrimination between the inner London boroughs and the outer London boroughs will create an invidious atmosphere from the start, and that would be regretted—certainly by the inner London boroughs and, I think, by the outer London boroughs as well—and would lead to all kinds of difficulties for fruitful co-operation.
  Sir K. Joseph rose—
  Mr. Fletcher: Let me finish. The Minister had plenty of time to think about it. After all, if he has not thought about it, it is our duty to help him to think about it.
  I am arguing that there are not the difficulties he appears to think there are, and that he has not given enough

  119
  thought to the appropriate machinery to give effect to what my hon. Friend is proposing and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields is supporting and which he himself concedes is desirable. This is another illustration of the failure of the Government to think things out before they bring in Bills.
  I am anxious to get this right. It seems to me a comic idea that even in regard to the outer London boroughs the Minister should ask Parliament to give him power to make provision by a charter for the boroughs. What is to happen under the First Schedule with regard to a new unit which incorporates three existing chartered boroughs? Are all those charters to be torn up? Will the Minister ask the Privy Council to make one new charter? If he can do that, why cannot he do it for the new joint borough of Islington and Finsbury or any of the other new inner boroughs?
  Take the borough of my right hon. Friend. What sense does it really make in my right hon. Friend's case to say, with such natural pride, that the Borough of Epsom and Ewell has a charter, a very deserved charter, if this borough is to be cut up? What is the use of the charter? Will it be preserved for half the borough which remains? If Parliament can cut up a chartered borough into two, does each separate part have a separate charter afterwards?
  If, under the Schedule, we have another local government unit which incorporates a chartered borough with an urban district, and if the borough prides itself on having and, no doubt, fought bard to get, its charter, is that chartered borough now to share the advantages of that charter with an unchartered pant of the area? That may be a very sensible thing to do. It is not an obviously sensible thing to do, but if it is something which the Minister can do with regard to provisions in areas in outer London he can equally do it in regard to the inner boroughs.
  That is the force of the argument that we are trying to put forward, and unless we can have a more satisfactory and a more convincing answer from the Minister about his willingness to accept the Amendment I shall share the view of my hon. Friend that we shall not make much progress with the Bill.
  5.15 p.m.
  ir K. Joseph: I will try to help the Committee once again. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), in his intervention, did not seem to recognise one of the difficulties here, namely, that the prerogative is not, I understand, used to give a charter where a working charter has already been given, as was done in 1899. That is the difficulty. That is why it is not just a simple case of saying that the inner London boroughs will be able, as Epsom and Ewell was able, to make petition with the same sort of prospect of consideration by the Privy Council and then advice to the Sovereign. On the other hand the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) does not recognise that the wording of subsection (2, b) gives the Minister—the Government—through Parliament the power to give a charter to a borough only because it already, in part of it, has a charter.
  Of course, when it comes to the incorporation order, part of it will be done and, explicitly, as a charter in 'the new outer London borough, since the issue between an unchartered and a chartered borough is whether there is a Charter or not. It is also an issue as to what is contained in the charter, but the principle we are discussing is not what is or is not contained in the charter but whether there is a charter or not. I still repeat that that is our real difficulty.
  With respect, I have tried to study the possibilities. I will try to study them again. If it will be any satisfaction to the Committee I will undertake to do my very best during the time that lies ahead to look into 'this as deeply as I can, but it must be understood that I cannot give any hope or prospect ultimately since this is a very complicated and difficult subject, and we must all be very careful not to intrude upon the prerogative. What is at issue here is not only whether a borough has a charter or not but the fact that the charter comes from the Crown on advice of the Privy Council. I remain willing, if the Committee wishes, to undertake to study it again, if my undertaking is interpreted in the context of 'the words I have used.
  Mr. Tom Driberg: An assurance that is immediately followed by the words "absolutely no hope or prospect" is not much of an assurance.
  Sir K. Joseph: "No undertaking that I would be successful". May I substitute those words?
  Mr. Driberg: A slight improvement and I thank the Minister for it; but he has been in two moods this afternoon, I think, so far. His original speech was helpful so far as it went, and was obviously intended to be sympathetic in tone, but some of us were rather puzzled to see him vigorously indicating dissent, as HANSARD puts it, when the suggestion was made from this side of the Committee that when the Privy Council is considering how the Sovereign should be advised on the granting of a charter there would presumably be consultation with the responsible Minister, that is, with himself. Surely that must be so?
  Sir K. Joseph: No, because, as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has just explained, charters are given by the Monarch on advice by the Privy Council, not by the Government.
  Mr. Driberg: The Minister misses my point. How can the Privy Council advise intelligently unless it knows, by consulting the responsible Minister, whether local government has been efficiently administered in that area? How? The right hon. Gentleman said that that was one of the conditions, did he not? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Somebody did. He did not indicate dissent at that point, and I think that it must be so. It is only common sense.
  A charter would not be given to some absolutely squalid little borough which had been maladministering its affairs for centuries. There must be some investigation. How does the Privy Council investigate except through the Minister and his Department? It cannot merely send for the local town clerk and ask him, "Is yours an efficient local government? "He will not answer, "It is not—and it is very corrupt."
  I hope that the Minister will take this matter seriously because it is clear, if one reads the subsection with care, that he is, in effect, abolishing royal charters altogether in so far as they apply to any part of the area in question. He is turning royal charters into ministerial charters. There is no doubt about it. That is what those words mean. Indeed, the word "charter" in this subsection is not even prefixed by "royal", as one might
  122
  expect it to be if the argument which he has been using is a sound one.
  We have all sorts of charters—including industrial charters and housewives charters. The word "charter" does not of itself mean "royal charter". No doubt the word has been left out of this subsection because he is turning these royal charters into ministerial charters. So I cannot see why he should not go a little further and, instead of leaving it to the burgesses to petition the Crown for their charters, himself take the initiative and tender advice to Her Majesty—'Which is the right of the Government of the day to do on almost any matter—and thus redress this slight anomaly.
  Mr. G. A. Pargiter: In the Seventh Schedule to the 1958 Act, special provision was made for a borough included in a rural area to carry out the functions which it had under its charter. If it were necessary to include such special provision then, what is the difficulty now concerning these proposed new boroughs? If this Amendment is not accepted, the position of these new London boroughs will be as it would have been in those oases without the special provision of the 1958 Act.
  It was decided in 1958, to give the boroughs then involved this special provision because the Government wanted to offer something to their inhabitants to salve their wounds at being put into other districts. In this case the concensus in the Committee is that we do not want distinctions. The case has been well argued for there not being any and I cannot see that the Minister's case is valid. This is a quite unnecessary provision. The simplest way would be to leave these words out of the subsection.
  Sir K. Joseph: The 1958 Act makes exactly the same distinction in its treatment, on the one hand, of boroughs which are merged with other boroughs—being boroughs they have charters and will therefore continue to have them—and, on the other hand, of urban districts made into county boroughs where the urban district, not having had a charter but having been incorporated, may not receive a charter. There is exactly the same distinction, therefore, in the 1958 Act as there is here.

  123
  I repeat my undertaking. I will do my best to see whether there is any way through this problem, and will report back to the Committee. I have honestly tried to warn the Committee that my undertaking must be made cautiously and have made it clear that I cannot be very hopeful of being able to find a way through. But I hope that the Amendment will be withdrawn in the light of what I have said.
  Mr. Stewart: I have listened with great interest to the Minister and I am sure that he is trying to be helpful and has treated the Committee with great candour. The trouble is that his candour has disclosed some of the weakness of his position. As I understand it, his argument has been that he could not put into the Bill a provision that he should provide inner London boroughs with charters because, he says—and I hope I paraphrase correctly—it is not for him to destroy existing charters nor to create new ones where none existed. For that reason, apparently, he could not put charters for the new inner London boroughs into the Bill. But in the Bill he takes power to create new charter rights.
  As has been pointed out, here is the phenomenon of a Minister being expressly empowered by a Bill to provide charters for new boroughs. It is true that such charters would be on the ruins of old charters and boroughs, but they really would be new charters. He is creating new charters for outer London boroughs, however. Thus he cannot really say that it is not in his power or that it is not appropriate for him to create charters. He is doing it. The right hon. Gentleman then went on to say that when the Bill was through possibly the inhabitants of the new inner London boroughs could petition for charters.
  Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman has missed out one step. I think he would agree that I said that since the inner London boroughs will contain no unit that ever had a charter since they were incorporated and since charters did not act as rubber stamps and merely reproduce what had been done before, it was not possible, I am advised, for them to be given charters.
  Mr. Stewart: That is the point I was coming to. If that is so, there would not
  124
  be the slightest use in their petitioning for charters at any time.
  Sir K. Joseph: I said that it would be open to any body of citizens to petition for a mark of favour or distinction. I did not say that it was open to them with any hope to petition for a charter in these cases.
  Mr. Fletcher: What is to prevent this Committee from providing that they should have the right to do so, if that is the only way they can have equality with outer London boroughs?
  Mr. Stewart: I think it is clear what the Minister has said. They can petition for some mark of favour but it would be hopeless for them to petition for a charter. That is very important. It means that unless we make some alteration in the Bill they will have no hope of obtaining charters either now or at any other time. I cannot quite understand the nature of the undertaking the Minister has given to the House. Is he undertaking that he will try to see if there is any way in which these boroughs can get chanters?
  Sir K. Joseph: Yes.
  Mr. Stewart: He is undertaking that. But he was demonstrating with great emphasis just now that it was quite impossible for them to get charters. Which actually is the case? I think that his solution of some special mark of favour other than a charter is really a non-starter. That, if anything, will rub in the difference between these boroughs and other boroughs. We are thus left with the position that it is the Minister's view that charters cannot be granted merely to rubber stamp something in cases where the work of a charter has already been done by some other means. I question whether that is the position which arises under the Bill.
  5.30 p.m.
  It is true that the work of providing, say, Fulham and Hammersmith as separate boroughs with the power to govern themselves has already been done by Statute; but the Bill creates a new entity, a new borough, combining Fulham and Hammersmitlh, just as it creates a new borough combining Bethnal Green and those areas which go with it. Sometimes it creates new boroughs which cut existing boroughs into pieces.

  125
  The work of providing the new boroughs with a form of government has not been done. The work of providing the present metropolitan boroughs with a form of government has been done. The work of providing the new London boroughs with a form of government will not have been done until the Bill is passed, and the Bill can provide for them, as it provides for the outer London boroughs, that it should be done by charter.
  Therefore, I do not accept that the Minister is correct when he says that they could not get a charter because the work has already been done by other means. However, if he is correct—and he seems to be very definite about it—it is out of the question for them to be able to get a charter. His undertaking amounts to saying that he will try his very best to do something which he has demonstrated to us as being impossible. I do not think that he will believe that we are cantankerous when we say that that is not satisfactory.
  As the Amendment has taken more time and trouble than I had hoped, may I suggest a way out? It is that we accept that the Minister is to try, difficult as it will be—and he thinks it more difficult than we do and he thinks it impossible; but to try is praiseworthy—to find a way out. Let him accept the Amendment Which will put on him a statutory duty to do something which we think ought to be done and which we think can be done, but which he thinks cannot be done.
  Mr. Driberg: But would like to do.
  Mr. Stewart: But would like to do. If he will accept the Amendment, he will put on himself that statutory obligation, and that would be a pledge of the seriousness with which he takes his undertaking. If he were to do that and
  then came back on Report and said, "Since I have been saddled with it as a statutory obligation, I have had to search fox ways and means of doing it, but even in an Act of Parliament it is impossible", we should not grumble nor take too long to accept an Amendment to take it out again. He loses nothing by giving us that advance pledge and it would be an encouragement to those hon. Members who want to prevent the inner London boroughs from starting Life with a slur and indignity on them as compared with their fellows.
  Sir K. Joseph: We all share the same objective. The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) has taken an ingenious initiative and I will try to respond similarly. Whether he and his hon. Friends decide to withdraw or to press the Amendment, I undertake that I shall do my very best to find a way round the difficulty. However, in this uncertain and delicate matter I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment. I hope that it will be withdrawn, but, withdrawn or not, I shall seek to the best of my ability to find a way round the difficulties, which we all acknowledge.
  Mr. Reynolds: In the Local Government Act, 1958, similar problems were anticipated. There are three lines in Section 45 which read:
  "The enabling provisions of this Part of this Act shall be deemed to be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the powers exercisable by Her Majesty by virtue of Her royal prerogative."
  I should have thought that we could have included something about the royal prerogative and say that it was in addition to it and not in derogation of it.
  Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 277, Noes 201.

  Division No. 24.]

  AYES

  [5.34 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Braine, Bernard

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Bidgood, John C.

  Brewis, John

  Allason, James

  Biffen John

  Bromley -Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Balniel, Lord

  Bishop, F. P.

  Bryan, Paul

  Barber, Anthony

  Bossom, Hon. Clive

  Buck Antony

  Barter John

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Bullard, Denys

  Batsford, Brian

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Burden, F. A.

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Box, Donald

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos & Fhm)

  Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Holland Philip

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Hollingworth, John

  Partridge, E.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Holt, Arthur

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Hooson, H. E.

  Peel, John

  Chataway, Christopher

  Hopkins, Alan

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Chichester-Clarke, R.

  Hornby, R. P.

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt- Hon. Dame P.

  Pitman, Sir James

  Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)

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

  Pott, Percivall

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Cooke, Robert

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

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

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Cordeaux Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Pym, Francis

  Cordle, John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Corfield, F. V.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Ramsden, James

  Costain, A. P.

  James, David

  Rawlinson, Sir Peter

  Coulson, Michael

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Renton, Rt. Hon. David

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Crawley, Aldan

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Crosthwaite-Evre, col. sir Oliver

  Joseph. Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Crowder, F. P.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Roots, William

  Cunningham, Knox

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Curran, Charles

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Russell, Ronald

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kimball, Marcus

  St. Clair, M.

  Dance James

  Kirk, Peter

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kitson, Timothy

  Sharpies, Richard

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Shaw, M.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Lambton, Viscount

  Shepherd, William

  Doughty, Charles

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Drayson, C. B.

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Smith Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)

  du Cann, Edward

  Leavey, J. A.

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Duncan, Sir James

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Speir, Rupert

  Eden, John

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Elliot, Capt Walter (Carshalton)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Stevens, Geoffrey

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

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Stodart, J. A.

  Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Lloyd Rt.Hn. Geofrrey (Sut'nC'dfield)

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Fell, Anthony

  Longbottom, Charles

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Finlay, Graeme

  Longden, Gilbert

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Lubbock, Eric

  Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

  Foster, John

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Teeling, Sir William

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

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Temple, John M.

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Mac Arthur, Ian

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Gammans, Lady

  McLaren, Martin

  Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

  Gardner, Edward

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&N. Ayrs)

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Glover, Sir Douglas

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

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Godber, J. B.

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Turner, Colin

  Goodhart, Philip

  Macpherson, Rt.Hn. Niall (Dumfries)

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maddan Martin

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Maginnis, John E

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Gough, Frederick

  Markham Major Sir Frank

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Green, Alan

  Marshall, Douglas

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Marten, Neil

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Walder, David

  Gurden, Harold

  Mawby, Ray

  Walker, Peter

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

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

  Wall, Patrick

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Mills, Stratton

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Webster, David

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Morgan, William

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Morrison, John

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Hay, John

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Wise, A. R.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Hendry, Forbes

  Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. sir Richard

  Woodnutt, Mark

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

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Woollam, John

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. J. E. B. Hill and Mr. Rees.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Ainsley, William

  Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)

  Bence, Cyril

  Albu Austen

  Bacon, Miss Allot

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E)

  Beaney, Alan

  Benson, Sir George

  128

  129

  Blackburn, F.

  Hilton, A. V.

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Blyton, William

  Holman, Percy

  Peart, Frederick

  Boardman, H.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

  Popplewell, Ernest

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

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Prentice, R. E.

  Boyden James

  Hoy, James H.

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Probert, Arthur

  Bradley, Tom

  Hughes Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Hunter, A. E.

  Rankin, John

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Hynd, H. (Accrlington)

  Reynolds, C. W.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Rhodes, H.

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Callaghan, James

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Carmichael, Nell

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Jeger George

  Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

  Chapman, Donald

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Ross, William

  Cliffe, Michael

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

  Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

  Collick, Percy

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Short, Edward

  Crosland, Anthony

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Silverman, Julian (Aston)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Kelley, Richard

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Darling, George

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  King, Dr. Horace

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Lawson, George

  Small, William

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Ledger, Ron

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Deer, George

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Snow, Julian

  Delargy, Hugh

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Dempsey, James

  Upton, Marcus

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Diamond, John

  Loughlin, Charles

  Steele, Thomas

  Dodds, Norman

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Driberg, Tom

  McCann, John

  Stonehouse, John

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  MacColl, James

  Stones, William

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  McInnes, James

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  McKay John (Wallsend)

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

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

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

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  McLeavy, Frank

  Swain, Thomas

  Evans, Albert

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Swingler, Stephen

  Fernyhough, E.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Symonds, J. B.

  Fitch, Alan

  Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Fletcher, Eric

  Manuel, Archie

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  Mapp, Charles

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Mason, Roy

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

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Thornton, Ernest

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Tomney, Frank

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Wainwright, Edwin

  George,Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

  Millan, Bruce

  Warbey, William

  Ginsburg, David

  Milne, Edward

  Weitzman David

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Mctchison, G. R.

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Gourlay, Harry

  Moody, A. s.

  Whitlock, William

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Moyle, Arthur

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Grey, Charles

  Neal, Harold

  Willey, Frederick

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Oram, A. E.

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Oswald, Thomas

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

  Gunter, Ray

  Owen, Will

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Padley, W. E.

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Paget, R. T.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Hannan, William

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Woof, Robert

  Harper, Joseph

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Healey, Denis

  Parker, John

  Zelliacus K.

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Parkin, B. T.

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Redhead and Dr. Broughton,

  Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I beg to move, in page 2, line 18, to leave out from "III" to the end of line 21.
  The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Samuel Storey): It will be in order to discuss with this Amendment the Amendment in page 2, line 21, leave out "sixty" and insert "seventy".
  Mr. Skeffington: Yes, Sir Samuel. The purpose of the Amendment, which I hope will commend itself both to the
  130
  Committee and the Government, is a fairly simple one. It is to a degree quite important, because it goes to the heart of representative local government. When the Government were advancing reasons for the Bill and for the change in the structure of the Greater London area, one of the things that they said they wanted to do—and this was also implicit in the recommendation of the Royal Commission—was to make local government more vigorous and interesting, and to attract people of the

  131
  highest quality to the service of the local authorities.
  I thought that both the Royal Commission and the Government were a little back-handed to the existing councillors who do all the work, but giving full merit to the positive side of the Government's argument, as the Bill is now drafted they are doing a disservice to the representative character of government as we have known it in the London area. If my Amendment were accepted, it would remove the limitation of 60 councillors which the Government have thought fit to incorporate in the Clause.
  I suppose that that number has been chosen because of its metropolitan borough association. I do not know. If that is the reason, it is rather a silly one. Perhaps we can be given the reason why the Government think that this is an appropriate number. In seeking to remove the limitation, neither I nor my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) is saying that some councils with smaller populations will necessarily require 60 councillors. All that we are seeking to do is to ensure that in some of these new and much larger London boroughs there will not be what seems to us an inflexible and artificial limit.
  The new boroughs are to be much larger than the metropolitan boroughs, and they are to have much bigger populations. They will also have new functions. Indeed, some populations of the new Greater London boroughs will exceed 300,000, which is a large figure. By limiting the number of councillors to 60 for these much larger boroughs, the Government are at one blow taking away a considerable number of representatives from the people living in the Greater London area. This is a great disservice to local government.
  Both in local and in national affairs we are living in an age of increasingly complex social machinery. Citizens often feel lost, and they need help. In the past we have always been able to tell them, in matters affecting local as well as national government, "If you have a problem of this kind go to see your local councillor". The fact is that the Bill as it is now drafted will make it much more difficult for people to do that very
  132
  thing. It is sometimes now difficult for electors to contact their local councillor. If the number of electors which a local councillor is to represent becomes much larger and the distance which electors have to go to contact him becomes greater, the difficulty will be increased in a way which we think unnecessary and wrong.
  What is the effect of the Government's proposals as compared with the present situation in the Greater London area? According to Circular 43/62 which the Ministry sent to us—may I say how much I appreciated the document which the Minister has sent to all members of the Standing Committee; I feel that while we were possibly taking part in the "funeral" ceremony of London government the Government have tried to do what they could for the convenience of the "mourners". Looking at that circular, one sees that the population of the new unit with which we are dealing in this Bill is 7,999,416. At this stage I might comment that to talk of a population of nearly 8 million is in itself somewhat curious when we are discussing local government. But that is, in fact, the figure.
  Excluding county councillors in both the comparisons I want to make—because I wish them to be exact—at present in this area there are 2,995 councillors—that is, borough councillors, urban district councillors and councillors of that category. On the average they represent 2,670 electors. This is a fairly small number. It means that a borough or a district councillor has an opportunity to get to know a great number of his electors and the electors have the opportunity and ought more easily to get to know their councillor. As the Bill is drawn, and with the artificial limit imposed by the Government, the number of borough and district councillors will be reduced from 2,995 to 1,920, a reduction of over 1,000 in the elected representatives in the Greater London area. As I said, this goes to the very heart of representative local government, and I shall require substantial reasons to be advanced for agreeing to this reduction in the number of public representatives in that area as is proposed in the provisions of this Bill.
  A reduction from 2,995 councillors to 1,920 means that the representative electorate is increased to 4,170. That is not

  133
  an unduly high figure, but it is certainly not as convenient a number as 2,670, the average electorate which a borough or a district councillor now represents. This, it seems to me, must worsen the relationship between councillor and elector. It widens the gap, and I think that unfortunate. I see no reason for it. This Amendment, while giving discretion to the Minister by allowing him flexibility, will, in respect of many of the large boroughs, provide for a number of councillors in excess of 60 where it is felt that the size of the population and the functions to be performed would justify a greater number.
  I have dealt with the democratic theory of the matter, which I consider of importance. We require more people rather than fewer to represent the common man in this age of complexity. But there is a second reason which is of practical importance in connection with the outer London boroughs which, under the terms of the Bill, will become full education authorities with responsibility for the day-to-day management of schools and institutions of technical education and for many other matters.
  I have been a member of an education committee. I do not know how many other hon. Members have had that responsibility. It is a pretty heavy responsibility if taken seriously, as I am sure the representatives of all boroughs would wish to take it. Some of the new Greater London boroughs will have more than 40 schools in their areas, which in itself means considerable work. The boroughs will have to deal with the day-to-day matters connected with those schools, with staffing problems and, in relation to Middlesex and London, with entirety new responsibilities.
  The boroughs which become education authorities straight away could advance a strong practical case for having more people to do the work. This would fit in very well with paragraph 518 of the Royal Commission's Report, which states:
  "Among those who are interested in local government at all there is in general a very strong interest in education. It is clear to us that a large number of councillors would like to serve on education committees and would like to regard the schools and the education service generally as one of their chief interests."
  134
  Some of us have said that, however laudable this sentiment may be and however much councillors may want to do this sort of work, it is hardly a justification for upsetting the structure of local government in the Greater London area. I have developed that argument before now and there is no need for me to do so again on this occasion. But the Royal Commission has said that if it is desired to create an interest in local government councillors should be allowed to serve on education committees.
  There are arguments against it. But having accepted the findings of the Royal Commission and argued that education ought to be the resposibility of the boroughs, why should the number of councillors be limited in the case of authorities which will straight away become education authorities? All hon. Members with practical experience know that this is a service which requires a large number of active members not only to sit on the committees but to do other work outside in the schools and other institutions. I hope that the Minister will consider the principle of having a convenient number of people to represent the citizens. I should have thought that was something which was very close to the heart of a Conservative. We often hear the cry from hon. Members opposite that the local people should decide, that 'the man in the town should make the decision and not Whitehall. So why on earth should the Government cut down by over 1,000 the number of councillors in the Greater London area?
  If the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) were accepted, it would give some flexibility. But I should like the matter left to the Minister, on the strict understanding that in the case of the large boroughs with a population of more than 300,000 the number of 60 should be removed, so that additional councillors could be elected to really represent the common man and take a proper part in the discharge of the new education function.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: I appreciate that the idea behind this Amendment is the same as the idea which was in my mind when I tabled the Amendment in my name which

  135
  appears on the Notice Paper. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) told us that under this provision the average electorate represented by the councillors of the boroughs in Greater London would number 4,170. He might have added that some councillors will be representing a larger number than that.
  Anyone who has served on a local authority will agree that one of the most important tasks of a councillor is to maintain a day-to-day contact with the people in his ward. If a councillor does his job conscientiously, he will spend his spare evenings visiting his electors and explaining to them the reasons behind council policy. In return he will hear their views on the matter, which should be of concern to a local authority. I think that the larger the local authority and the smaller the number of councillors serving on it, the more difficult will this task become.
  6.0 p.m.
  The Amendment in my name is designed to mitigate some of the ensuing remoteness of local government from the ordinary man-in-the-street. At the same time we did not feel that it was wise to establish vast and unwieldy councils by unduly increasing the number of councillors who serve on those bodies. This increase from 60 to 70 is therefore a compromise between having a very large number of councillors who might find it difficult to get enough work to do and having so few that they are not able to perform the tasks which are such an essential part of the councils' work.
  Incidentally, this increase from 60 to 70 would mean that if we subsequently decided not to have aldermen on the local authorities—and I hope I am not transgressing the rules of order by referring to this—we should still have the same numbers serving on a local authority as before, because a later Clause provides that there should be one alderman to six councillors. That is another reason why I chose this figure. I think my Amendment provides a useful compromise between two extremes, and as such I hope that it will be accepted.
  Captain John Litchfield: I hope that my right hon. Friend will feel
  136
  able to accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), which I prefer to the more rigid Amendment in the same sense in the name of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock).
  The difficulty in limiting to such a figure as sixty the number of councillors in an amalgamated borough is particularly acute where a fairly small borough such as Chelsea is to be amalgamated with a much larger one such as Kensington. I shall explain to my right hon. Friend and the Committee the effect in this particular case of which I have details. Under the proposed arrangements, in the amalgamated borough of Chelsea and Kensington we shall have a population of around 216,000. Under the Bill this greatly enlarged borough will be represented by a council of 60 councillors and ten aldermen.
  As things are at present, Chelsea Borough Council, which serves a population of around 50,000, is represented by 36 councillors and six aldermen, 42 members of the council in all. According to my calculations, after the amalgamation with Kensington the Chelsea representatives on the enlarged borough council will amount to only 14 councillors and one alderman. They will be serving the same population as the present borough council of 42. This will put very considerably enlarged responsibilities on them under the Bill.
  I am well aware that in most councils the more responsible work and decisions are handled by a fairly limited number of dedicated persons, chairmen and so on. Nevertheless, one of the criticisms of London County Council as it is at the moment has been its remoteness of control. I cannot help feeling that a very much geographically enlarged borough such as Chelsea and Kensington and a population more than four times that of Chelsea to be served by a council so far as Chelsea representatives are concerned of no more than about one-third of the present number of representatives will tend to lead to a certain remoteness of control as things stand under the Bill.
  This, perhaps, will be rather specially the case in an awkwardly situated new borough with many long transverse lines of communication. I hope that my right

  137
  hon. Friend understands the problem as it will affect a particular case such as this. Personally, I would support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. I hope the Minister will be able to take that into account and at least leave himself some discretion in the appointment of the number of representatives in these boroughs.
  I am not convinced that it is necessary to lay down the numbers precisely in the Bill. We all want to avoid the disadvantages of a very unwieldy body, but at the moment it seems too small. I hope that without tying himself to any number at the moment my right hon. Friend will leave himself discretion to judge each authority on its needs and circumstances.
  Mr. Walter Edwards: I support everything that has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Captain Litchfield). My proposed new borough will have approximately the same population as his and will be confronted with the same difficulty as Chelsea when Chelsea is joined with Kensington and when my borough comprises Stepney, Poplar and Bethnal Green.
  I want to get clear why this proposal has been put into the Bill. Is there a special motive in stating that the maximum number of councillors should be 60? Does that mean that those with the greatest population will have 60 and those with a smaller population will have less than 60? The hon. and gallant Member seemed to have the impression that because the population of Kensington and Chelsea will amount to 215,000 there will be 60 councillors. I hope he was right, because if Kensington and Chelsea as a combined borough is to have 60 councillors there will be no justification in not providing 60 councillors for the new London Borough of Stepney, Poplar and Bethnal Green.
  I rather suspect, however, that this is in the Bill in order that the Minister may himself decide on a smaller number of councillors for some of the new London boroughs. If that is the case, I tell the Minister that it will be a very grave mistake. I have had a little experience in this matter. I served for nearly twenty-five years on Stepney Borough
  138
  Council. I know exactly what work has to be done if the council is to conduct its business properly without leaving most of the responsibilities, and sometimes decisions, to the officials of the council. It is essential to have the largest number of suitable and competent members of the council to see that the council's business is run in the proper way.
  The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) mentioned the work which councillors in the various wards have to do. My experience bears out what he said. In addition, in the East End boroughs—I make a special plea for the new borough of Stepney, Poplar and Bethnal Green—the problems are much greater than those of some of the West End boroughs. What we find in East London is that not only do the councillors go round to see the electorate but the electorate come knocking on their doors day after day and night after night. My wife is a member of Stepney Borough Council. It is a wonder that we have a knocker left. People come to see her, for example, when they have no coal or if there is a freeze-up in a block of flats—all sorts of problems which appear to be minor problems but which in fact are major problems to those people who have no means of attending to them. It is therefore essential that the number of councillors is not too low. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington that it ought to be even higher in the larger areas, but it certainly ought to be no lower even in the smaller areas.
  Let us visualise what will happen with these three borough councils. Later they will have additional housing work, and other work will be passed to them which is now carried out by the L.C.C. There will be 60 councillors operating in these three boroughs, and it will be quite difficult for many of the constituents to know who their councillors are. It will be very difficult for people to get the service which a councillor desires to give to his electorate; because of the vastness of the area he will be unable to give it.
  I feel that for the benefit of local government the Minister ought to accept the Amendment, which in no way injures the Bill or the purpose of the Bill but which in fact would make it a better

  139
  Bill. I hope that the Minister will keep an open mind but will make certain that in the smaller, new London boroughs, in particular, there will be sufficient councilors to carry out the functions properly. If it is necessary to 'have more councillors in the larger boroughs, well and good, but let him not fall below 60.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: I do not want to detain the Committee for long, but I hope that my right hon. Friend took note of what was said by the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Captain Litchfield). I was particularly impressed by the point made about the increasing functions of these authorities. We must bear in mind that many of the new boroughs will be awkward in shape. As my hon). and gallant Friend said, Chelsea and Kensington will be extremely difficult to administer.
  My right hon. Friend ought to take this into consideration in two ways. First, he should provide a great degree of flexibility because of the different shapes and types of the boroughs and, as the hon. Member for Stepney pointed out, the different character of the boroughs. In the whole of the time that I have been on the Chelsea Borough Council I do not think that I have received more than a couple of telephone calls on council business, whereas in Stepney a borough councillor will probably have many calls in a week from individuals about different problems. We are thus faced with a problem which can be solved only by some degree of flexibility among the various boroughs.
  I suggest that the boroughs themselves must be closely consulted, for they know roughly what their needs will be in the future, and they must take into consideration the revised functions and increased powers which they will have under the Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at this matter carefully, because there is merit in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. If he cannot accept the Amendment, perhaps he will give the Committee an assurance that he will think this problem over and let us have a decision at a later date.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. G. A. Pargiter: The point which arises here is perhaps rather wider than that put by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington). He said that a councillor would represent about 4,000 inhabitants, but in fact the wards will consist of about 12,000 inhabitants—and that is the factor which matters. The ward will elect three councillors, so that any one of them may at any time be representing 12,000 people. We cannot divide it into three, with each councillor representing 4,000 inhabitants. In effect we shall have three councillors, each representing 12,000 people. This is far too many and far more than one could possibly hope to deal with.
  Surely it is running entirely contrary to the principles which are supposed to be behind the Bill—those of making local government local. The Bill seeks to transfer from counties, which are said to be too large for some of their functions, some of the intimate services which are to go to the boroughs in order that people may be nearer their elected representatives and their services. I recognise that as a county councillor in a county council area I may be representing 20,000 electors, and the argument is that we must avoid this state of affairs, but under the present proposals one councillor will be representing 12,000 people. Moreover, he will be dealing with services which in the past have been regarded as more intimate than some administered by 'the county council. It seems to me that there is a good case to be made for the argument that a councillor ought not to represent so many people and that the structure needs to be considerably altered.
  An alternative is to provide greater flexibility in the number of councillors who may be elected. If they are to be elected on the basis on which county councillors are elected, representing a ward, which is presumably what the structure will be, then a larger number must be provided 'than at present. It would not be so bad if all were elected representatives, but if we are told that ten of them are to be appointed, not owing allegiance to particular wards or sections of the population, then the position is even worse than has already been suggested.

  141
  I hope that the Minister will see the wisdom of looking at this situation again with a view to ensuring that the electorate will be properly represented which, after all, is the first function which we have to consider. Secondly, we must see that the councillor who is elected can properly do the job. If we take those two considerations into account, we cannot possibly accept the provisions proposed.
  Mr. Frederic Harris: Everything which has been said this afternoon supports my view that 'this is a bad Bill. I have gained no encouragement from what has been said in the debate. The first Amendment became very complex, as we all found, and the second point, which we are discussing, confirms in my mind the view that those who are behind these proposals know very little about what they are doing. I cannot imagine for a single moment what is the idea behind the limitation in numbers of 60.
  The hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) touched on the vary point which I want to make—'that the hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffing-ton) and Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) miscalculated the position and appeared to take the total population in the greater London area and to divide it by the number of councillors, concluding that the resulting number was the population which each councillor would represent. It works out between 3,000 and 4,000. But the hon. Member for Southall is correct in saying that these councillors will represent 10,000 to 12,000 people.
  In the County Borough of Croydon, sadly soon no longer to be a county borough, we already have a population of 250,000. If the Bill goes through in its present form—and I know that some of my hon. Friends are 'trying to alter it, and I shall support them where I can—the borough is to have added to it Coulsdon and Purley, and we shall then have a population of one-third of a million. We shall be the largest Greater London borough. Whatever importance that gives us compared with our present status of being a county borough, I do not know. Our councillors now represent 10,000 to 12,000 electors in their own wards, and under these proposals they will represent 16,000 people.
  It is just not on. Anybody in the House of Common's with any knowledge
  142
  of local government work—a large number of hon. Members have such knowledge—knows that a councillor cannot represent 16,000 people and do the job as conscientiously as he should. I sincerely hope 'that the Minister who answers this point will not rise having already had the answer set out for him and give us a completely unsatisfactory answer. If he does and this matter is pressed to a Division—I hope that it will be, particularly the first Amendment—I shall certainly support the Amendment. It is absolutely wrong from the word "go" to impose a limitation of 60.
  I am certain that a place like the County Borough' of Croydon is not receiving anything like the consideration it deserves. This is another typical case where we will eventually be told by the Bill that Croydon, with Coulsdon and Purley added on, with a population of one-third of a million, will be limited to 60 councillors. What good local government idea can lie behind that thought? It is a very bad performance altogether. I sincerely hope that the Minister who is to reply, for his own sake—because 'there is not a single hon. Member here who has done anything but support the Amendment—can see 'the wisdom of this and will at least accept the first Amendment without any qualification whatsoever.
  Mr. Skeffington: May I enlighten the hon. Gentleman on one point? I took actual electors in each case—or, rather, sometimes I took electors and sometimes population. Although I may have put it in a rather modest way, this is the fairest comparison, because sometimes now councillors are in wards of various sizes. Even taking the figure I gave of the future electorate compared with the present electorate, this is a very considerable weakening of the representation of the ordinary man.
  Mr. Harris: We are as one in regard to our apposition to the Government in this. I rather gathered from the hon. Gentleman's speech, which I followed with great interest, that he virtually appeared to have taken the total population of the Greater London area of just about 8 million and divided it by the number of existing councillors. I may be entirely wrong about that. However, we have the same idea in mind.
  Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I feed a little diffident about intervening in this debate in what seems to be a unanimous Committee. Every hon. Member who has spoken seems to be of one accord that the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) could be accepted, or alternatively that the Amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) should be given further consideration.
  I want to echo the plea made by the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn). I can understand the Government's difficulty. They seek to introduce a scheme which has a certain amount of shape to it. In doing so they must inevitably incline to be rigid. It must be obvious to everybody from all the topics discussed today that no two boroughs are alike. No two boroughs are of the same size. No two boroughs have the same problems. The Minister should be grateful to the Committee for trying to get him out of the difficulty in which he has placed himself by having this rigidity in this part of Clause 1. Even if the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend were accepted, many councils might still decide that they wanted sixty. However, it would provide the opportunity for a little give and take when the conditions of a borough demanded that.
  The hon. Member for Croydon, North West (Mr. F. Harris) was rather courageous in trying to probe what was behind the Government's mind. Hon. Members have been doing this for centuries, but they have never found out what is behind a Government's mind. The hon. Member has told us of the large number of electors there will be in Croydon, but there will be only 168,000 in the adjoining borough. Some of the 32 boroughs will be twice as large as others.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards) spoke of the differing functions, the differing conditions, and the differing activities that go on in an area. My constituency, because it is a Middlesex area, is at the moment a housing authority. It is clear that the pinch is the relationship between the local councillor and those who elect him. I know that I do not have to convince the Minister in charge of the Bill of Willesden's housing problems. He has
  144
  been only too aware of them, not only in his present post but when he was Parliamentary Secretary. With all the housing pressures of overcrowding, with all the problems which arise in an area like mine where 55 per cent. of the people are in shared accommodation—two families living under one roof—the first port of call for such people is the local councillor. If this is to be spread so that somebody in Wembley is to tackle the housing problem of somebody living in Willesden at a time, say, when the police have been called in to settle a court case between upstairs and downstairs, it will lead to many difficulties in my area. I will not weary the House by going over the whole list of items that my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney put forward. All of us who have served on local authorities know that this is the case.
  I have in mind something affecting street lighting or a road. The only way in which a resident is able to bring pressure to bear is by contacting the person who knows, who is close to him, who has lived in the area for some time, and who has been elected. That is the only way to get something done in the council chamber. We have all had experience of this because from time to time we have to resist these pressures. We try to be fair. It is at the stage when the elector says "Will you please come and see this for yourself" that one starts to take the thing up, to be a little persistent, and sometimes to be a little awkward in the council chamber until action is taken.
  The first person that parents want to see about what goes on in local schools is their local councillor. The restriction of sixty so that there is not the fluidity flowing from adequate representation places upon the Minister a burden which it is not right that they should bear.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington gave facts and figures. Unless there is fluidity we shall find ourselves burdened with something that is schematic, something where everybody has to fit into a bureaucratic pattern, where good local government, instead of being enhanced by the Bill, will be injured. This is not a matter of principle. We are not altering in any way the right eventually to have some kind of limitation on the number according

  145
  to local circumstances. We share with the Minister the idea that we do not want a local council of about 250 people arguing like a mass meeting. We understand why there should be certain limitations. Unless the Minister accepts an arrangement whereby the localities themselves can have that kind of government which suits them best and not something which is dreamed up in Whitehall, I hope that my hon. Friends will press this matter to a Division.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald Russell: I support the Amendment, at least to the extent of asking my right hon. Friend to give himself more flexibility to fix the number in the way my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Captain Litchfield) suggested and not limit himself to the rigid number of 60. There are two reasons additional to those which have been already mentioned.
  First, not only is the total number of councillors being reduced. The total number of aldermen is also being reduced. That will make a considerable difference to boroughs in Middlesex—perhaps more so than to those in the London area—because, for example, in Wembley there are at present 12 aldermen; in other words, one to every three councillors. Under the new regime, however, the ratio will be one to every six and instead of having 12 to itself Wembley will have—if the proposed amalgamation with Willesden goes through, and I shall have something to say against that later—four instead of 12, and so another reduction is made.
  There is an additional reason. The fact that there is a difference in the populations of these boroughs has already been mentioned. This is very true. The largest seems to be the Borough of Lambeth, plus a section of Wandsworth, with a total population of 341,000. The smallest seems to be the Kingston-upon-Thames group with a total population of 166,000. Thus, one is more than twice the size of the other.
  I wonder what my right hon. Friend's intentions are about the minimum number of councillors? Has he in mind any sort of proportion, because if 341,000 people are to have 60 councillors it would seem that 166,000 will have only about 30 councillors? I can think of boroughs
  146
  in the London area, like Stoke Newing-ton, which at present have 30 councillors. Stoke Newington has a population of only 52,000 people. Are we to jump from a borough with 52,000 people and 30 councillors to a borough with 166,000 also with only 30 councillors?
  I hope that the Minister will arrange these matters in some form of proportion and I urge him to bear in mind the differences in size, of more than two to one in some cases. He should relieve himself of the rigid limit of 60 and allow it to go up to, say, 80, or whatever may be thought fit.
  Mr. R. J. Mellish: Four hon. Members opposite have spoken on this topic and each one of them has been in favour of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington). Each of them has spoken with great knowledge of local government and it would seem, therefore, that a case for the Government to accept the Amendment has been fully established.
  This is indeed an odd Government. They have introduced a Bill which has caused great affront to local government throughout the review area. At a time when they propose to introduce more services at local level they propose to cut down by more than 1,000 the number of councillors who must do this work. This is a monstrous attitude of mind, especially since the people doing this work offer their services voluntarily and do their jobs to the best of their ability.
  Will the Parliamentary Secretary explain how, when the Government propose to place more work on local authorities, the committee system will work with fewer councillors? At present, local authorities are divided into a number of committees—public health, housing, and so on—and with the extra work being placed upon them they will have even more committees; for child welfare, the mentally handicapped and especially for dealing with the elderly. Is all this additional work to be thrown on to fewer councillors?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards) was right when he said that we will not be sure just what the numbers should be. The Bill merely mentions the figure of 60, but does not

  147
  contain a minimum figure. My constituency is small and has 42 councillors. Under the new set up is that figure to be reduced to 10? It is monstrous to treat people in this way, whatever their party allegiances. It is monstrous for the Government to say that a certain figure is all that a certain borough is worthy of.
  If, with an average sized borough, the figure of 60 is to apply, then Bermond-sey, with its population and size, would get only 10 on a pro rata basis. The Minister has no right to write such an obligation into the Bill. He must agree that this is a matter for consultation. "We will not decide to put this figure into legislation, but we will take it on its merits and discuss the matter with the people who are to do the work", the right hon. Gentleman should say.
  As has been said, if the Bill is to be a success there will need to be a great deal more co-operation, especially from those who are to run the local authorities. I remind the Minister that he will be giving to local authorities services which many of them have never asked for and, frankly, many of them think they are not equipped to handle—and I am thinking especially of tasks involving mental health and the handicapped.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) that one cannot say that a councillor represents 4,000 to 5,000 members of the electorate but, rather, that he represents a ward of, say, 10,000 to 12,000 people. More demands will be made of him under the Bill. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary not to give us a Civil Service brief when he replies, one containing a list of figures, but that he will concede the point, say that the Government will consult with the local authorities and that he accepts the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington.
  I urge the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment and not that moved by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) because, typically Liberal, that one writes in another figure and is a compromise—and it is the wrong figure, anyway. We consider that this should be a matter for consultation with the local authorities concerned so that they can do the job thev are equipped to perform.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I shall clash a little with the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), because since a number of figures have already been presented in the debate so far, I shall have to use some as well, despite his request to the contrary.
  When the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) opened the debate he drew attention to the fact that the figure of 60 was the same as the limit laid down for the metropolitan boroughs under the London Government Act. I can assure him that it was not for this basic reason that this particular figure was selected. It was selected because experience has shown that it strikes a reasonable balance between the danger of local authorities becoming too unwieldy, on the one hand, and too remote, on the other. Of the existing 28 metropolitan boroughs, only 10 have councils of the maximum size.
  A great many of the points raised were directed to the fact that the new boroughs would, in many cases—in the outer London area, at any rate—have the powers of county boroughs. It is of interest to note that the existing three county boroughs in this area all have relatively small councils. Croydon, the largest, has 48 councillors and 16 aldermen and the Committee will remember that outside London the proportion of aldermen to councillors is one to three instead of one to six. In West Ham, the figures are the same—that is, 48 and 16, making a total of 64—while East Ham has 30 and 10, making a total of 40. Thus the argument that these functions cannot be carried out without a substantially larger number of councillors does not hold water in the light of the experience of the county boroughs in the neighbourhood.
  Mr. F. Harris: My hon. Friend has stated that Croydon has 64 elected representatives on its council. He must be aware that this is with the present population of a quarter of a million. He must also be aware that the intention is to increase that number to one-third of a million and that the population can grow even larger in the years to come. What is the point, therefore, of limiting the figure in question to only another six people?
  Mr. Corfield: I hope that my hon. Friend will be patient. I am coming to that point. I was trying to deal with the question of the number of councillors sufficient to man the various committees necessary for the full functions of county boroughs as we have now but to which the new London boroughs will be very similar regarding their powers. I was saying that experience shows that these figures are adequate. We have consulted the local authority associations, which agree that a statutory limit written into the Bill is desirable and that 60 is an adequate number.
  But just as there is obviously danger of becoming too remote if there are too few councillors, there is equally a danger of not being able to man the requisite committees. We do not visualise that even the smaller boroughs, because of their functions, will have substantially fewer than the maximum, for the reason that they will have to man the same committees.
  Mr. W. Edwards: And more.
  Mr. Corfield: No, they will all have to man the same committees, but I would also point out that the largest borough, which is Lambeth with part of Wandsworth added, works out, with a total of 60 councillors, at one elected representative to 5,600 electors. This is a figure quite substantially less than occurs in many of the county boroughs in the country. It compares very favourably, for example, with Birmingham with 9,450, Liverpool with over 6,000, Manchester with nearly 6,000, Leeds with over 6,000 and Sheffield with over 6,500.
  Therefore, there is plenty of experience in county boroughs to show that this is not an impossible figure to manage, and, of course, the Committee will bear in mind that it is not only a question of numbers but a question of geography. Quite clearly, a fairly high number of electors per representative can be managed in a concentrated area such as, almost by definition, we are dealing with in the Bill.
  I would, therefore, urge the Committee to withdraw the Amendment, because I think it is quite clear that 60 is an adequate number. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why? "] We regard it as desirable to have uniformity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why? "] A great deal of the debate on
  150
  the last Amendment was surely directed to the desire to have no distinction between either individual boroughs or classes of boroughs but, as my right hon. Friend then pointed out, his inability to get uniformity there was due to technical and constitutional problems rather than any lack of desire. We have no such obstacle here.
  Mr. Mellish: I do not know what authority the hon. Gentleman has for talking about uniformity. As far as we read the Bill, that is not correct and there will be in the London area local authorities with far fewer than 60 members. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that every Greater London borough will have 60 members? If not, is not that a denial of his argument about uniformity? Why cannot people be left to discuss with the Minister what is suitable for local needs?
  Mr. Corfield: I am sorry, but I did not mean to imply that all the local authorities would have 60 members, but that there would be a uniform maximum laid down by statute. I made the point, however, that owing to the number of committees to be manned, and so on, we do not visualise that there will be councils with substantially fewer representatives than the 60 laid down. The local authority associations take the same view.
  Captain LitchfieldBefore my hon. Friend finally commits himself, I hope that he will think again and not drive some of his most loyal hon. Friends into opposing this part of the Bill, which otherwise they will do.
  Mr. Corfield: As I have already told the Committee, this is a provision both as to size and numbers of councils. The idea of having them statutorily laid down has been agreed with the local authority associations. I urge the Committee to accept the Clause as it stands. Therefore, I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Pargiter: Would the hon. Gentleman say what local authority associations have agreed to this?
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I apologise to the Committee for my voice. I have a bad cold. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned three county boroughs which are already in

  151
  existence. He quoted in aid Croydon, East Ham and West Ham and he explained that there are about 40 aldermen and councillors combined in East Ham and about 60 in West Ham. This makes 100. Therefore, in future there will be a maximum of 60 where there are now 100. But two other areas are to be added and, therefore, we shall have a larger combination of two county boroughs which will have almost half the present number of councillors and aldermen.
  6.45 p.m.
  In my area—and I am sure that I speak also for East Ham—these aldermen and councillors are ordinary working-class men and women. There are housewives, dock workers, engineers, bricklayers, carpenters, and labourers among them. If a councillor has a job to do he might well be on night work or shift work, but if, at any given moment, Councillor Smith is not available people go to see Councillor Jones.
  This is a useful system when there are two councillors to a ward. One can be a member of a housing committee and the other a member of the health committee. If someone comes round to discuss a problem the situation is made easy because one might say, "I am Councillor Smith, but I am not on the housing committee. See my colleague, Councillor Jones, who also represents the ward and is a member of the housing committee. Discuss the matter with him." The position under the Bill will be that with additional numbers from Barking Borough Council and Woolwich we shall have fewer councillors to carry out more services.
  The remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) should be borne in mind. The. Minister can easily leave this matter for negotiation. He need not promise to agree to any extension. He can leave it open so that the town clerks and the boroughs when formed can argue the merits, if any, of the case for a larger number of representatives. They may not be needed in every area. It may well be that an area which already has 60 may say that that number is sufficient, but I am sure that Croydon, for example, will want the opportunity of at least saying to the Minister,
  152
  "Under the Bill we cannot ask for more. Leave it open to us so that when the time comes when we want to ask for more and we can substantiate that there is a claim, you as Minister will be free to give us what we want."
  We are not asking the Minister to commit himself to anything, except to say that he will allow freedom to himself and to the councillors concerned to approach him to substantiate their claim.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: I appeal to my right hon. Friend to think again. Both sides of the Committee have been extraordinarily reasonable. We are trying to help my right hon. Friend. If the proposed amalgamations go through in Battersea and Wandsworth—and I hope that they will not—we shall have fewer councillors than we now have. I ask my right hon. Friend to look at this matter again and to say that there is merit in what has been said on both sides of the Committee today. I ask him to say that he welcomes the freedom which the Committee has given him to be flexible in choosing the size of representation according to the exact circumstances.
  I am sure that the Committee would not press for a Division if he gave that assurance.
  Mr. Skeffington: In view of the united representations made to the Minister from both sides of the Committee, I think that not only has the Parliamentary Secretary been unforthcoming, but, if I may say so without offence, rather perfunctory. He has not referred to the fact that under the Bill people in the Greater London area will lose 1,025 representatives.
  This is a very serious loss. The hon. Gentleman made no reference to the fact that the great outer London boroughs are to become education authorities. Everybody knows that this is a very heavy commitment indeed. I must say that it is rather hard that he should use the existing county boroughs to justify the Clause as now drafted because they are working so well. The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) and others may well say, "If they are so good, why are you altering them at all?"
  We have couched this Amendment in very moderate terms, giving the Minister great flexibility. I hope that if the

  153
  Minister is not more forthcoming the whole Committee will vote for the Amendment. It would not destroy the purpose of the Bill, but it would give the Minister power which he is at the moment denying himself.
  Wing Commander Eric Bullus: May I add my plea to the Minister to think again? Many hon. Members have spoken in support of the Amendment. We are not asking him to insert a figure in the Bill, but we do ask that he should have permissive powers. If they are not required, he need not use them. So much in the Bill smacks of imposition. Here is an opportunity for the Minister to say, "I will try to take the Committee with me. I will take this back and think again". If the Minister gives this undertaking, the Amendment will no doubt be withdrawn.
  I am certain that every borough is affected by the provision. In Wembley, there are 48 representatives—the same number as for Willesden—and yet there are to be fewer councillors to do more work. That is the position of almost every borough that is affected. Here is an opportunity at the outset for my hon. Friend to try to be more flexible and to accommodate those hon. Members who have spoken to the Amendment.
  Sir K. Joseph: I think that the comments made by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee carry a good deal of weight. I would normally have asked my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to make any concession that might be made, since he has stood up to the fire of hon. Members from the beginning. I am anxious to oblige the Committee and to go some way, but there is something that I must say first, which will make for disagreement between hon. Members on both sides of the Committee and myself, and, since that has to be said, I would rather make the speech myself.
  There is an issue of principle here. The hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards) and others have quoted with admiration—and I share that admiration—the day-by-day activities of councillors in London and, indeed, all over the country. There are hundreds and thousands of them who give help to their constituents in every way they can.
  154
  These are honourable endeavours, and we owe a great tribute of praise and gratitude to such people.
  But—and here is the point of possible disagreement—if the local government machine is working properly, many of the cases that go to the councillors, and with which councillors have to concern themselves, should have been dealt with by officials—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am not seeking to deny the right of councillors to do exactly what they want in this way, but there should not be as much need as it is suggested there is in some cases.
  It is for councillors, above all, to decide policy and it is for councillors to see that officials carry out that policy. Whenever councillors wish to involve themselves in individual cases it is entirely up to 'them to do so, but there should not be such an overwhelming need that they have to employ their entire leisure in doing it. If they want to do so, that is fine—
  Mr. W. Edwards: I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman has never served on a borough council, particularly in the East End of London. It is easy for him to say that the councillors decide policy and that it is their job to see that the officials carry it out. Let the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that we are dealing with old people, in many cases. Many of them can hardly write a letter to the municipal offices, let alone pay fares out of their old-age pensions in order to go and visit the offices. It is essential, in the interests of such people and in the Government's interest as well, that there should be a sufficient number of well-merited people who are prepared to take up these cases. They do not take them up because they want to be a nuisance, or because they want medals. They want to give service.
  Sir K. Joseph: There is nothing between the hon. Gentleman and myself in what he has just said, but I maintain that we must not judge the necessary size of a council by the heavy work load that some councillors—and all honour to them—think it necessary to do. It may be necessary in some areas to do it, but it should not be necessary in every area. If it is a pleasure and a job that they want to do, fine; but the officials and the organisation should be

  155
  such that the work should in most cases—not in all cases, obviously—be done.
  This leads me to say that any concessions that the Government might contemplate here on further consideration could not be such as to free altogether a council to have as many members as it pleases. What I am willing to offer is that we will take this away and look again at this particular number and move possibly in the direction of a larger number, but we may possibly have to come back and say, "On consideration, we do not think that this is right." What I suggest is that we will take it away and consult again with the local authority associations in the light of this debate, but I must repeat that any concession which might be made would still have a maximum to it.
  Before I sit down, in the hope that that will satisfy the Committee for the moment, I would like to strengthen the argument of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary by quoting a few other local authorities which as county boroughs, already have to carry the responsibilities that the London boroughs will have to carry. Nottingham, with a population of 313,000, has a total council of 68. Coventry, with a population of just over 300,000, has a total council, including aldermen, of 64. Leicester, with a population of 273,000, has 64, and Cardiff, with 256,000, has 68.
  Mr. A. Lewis: In every case that he has quoted there are more than 60.
  Sir K. Joseph: I am including aldermen. The number in the Bill is 60 plus 10 aldermen, making 70.
  I hope that the Committee will recognise that there is here some virtue in a limit to make sure that the council is such a body as can really consult among itself and not be unwieldy. That is common ground. I will gladly take this away and reconsider it, and I will consult the local authority associations again, but I must remind the Committee that any concession that is made in size will be subject to a maximum. I hope that the Amendment will be withdrawn.
  Mr. M. Stewart: First. I want to take up what I think was the very important and rather unwelcome reference which the Minister made to the individual casework of councillors and the relative
  156
  duties of councillors and officials. I think that I follow the point that he was making, and there is substance in it. But let us take the very important problem of the allocation of housing vacancies. I accept fully that that ought to be done on agreed principles of policy and that it would be very improper if somebody had a better chance of getting a housing allocation simply because he had been to see a councillor and had been exceptionally persuasive.
  I follow that point entirely. But what the Minister has completely neglected is this. A decision on policy can be made on how housing vacancies are to be allocated. One can decide, for example, as a number of councils do, that it is to be done on some kind of points system, making so much allowance for the length of time that somebody has been on the list, so much allowance for his present accommodation, the size of the family, health and all the rest. Once such a points system has been agreed, I fully accept that it would be highly improper for there to be personal approaches to councillors enabling people to get accommodation in defiance of the general principles of the scheme.
  7.0 p.m.
  What the Minister does not seem to grasp is that the councillor who does a great deal of individual meeting of people is able to discover whether the policy which is laid down is sound or not. It may well be that a points system which gave so much weight to one factor and so much to another made good sense in 1950 but not good sense in 1960. How are councillors best to find out? Mrs. Jones comes to see a councillor and argues with him, asking why she has not yet got a house. The councillor may not be able, or should not be able, to reveal to her the whole detail of the points system because much of such systems sometimes has to be kept confidential, but, if he is doing his job, he will listen carefully to what she says and he will then weigh in his own mind what the situation is.
  In such circumstances, the councillor will take into consideration that, according to the borough's present policy, Mrs. Jones must be told that she has a long time yet to wait. But he will ask himself whether the policy is sound—"Does the fact that somebody in the position

  157
  of Mrs. Jones 'has to wait in that way suggest that there is something wrong with the points system, that it has become out of date and it ought to be amended?". He cannot reach a decision on the basis of just one interview with one complainant. The whole value of his seeing a great many of the individuals he represents is that he is able to get a picture of the working of the policy forged in the council chamber or in committee, argued out, and administered by officials.
  By seeing a great many people, he is able to understand what the policy means in actual human realities. This is the importance of it, and this is why, apart from the rather special cases where they may be able to help individuals, councillors ought to be able to do that kind of work.
  Policy ought not to be twisted merely to meet individual hard cases without regard to how other cases will be affected, but neither should policy be framed without a fairly extensive knowledge of individual cases. This is why I say that the work which my hon. Friends have been describing is both necessary and important, and we ought to think twice before we reduce the number of councillors to such an extent that it cannot properly be done.
  For that reason, I cannot agree with the conclusions which the Minister reached. He contends that we can safely afford to reduce the number of councillors because this case work, which may be attractive or enjoyable—I think that he said that councillors may enjoy it, which struck me as a rather curious word to use—is not really necessary. For the reasons I have given, I do not accept that. In the best administrated authorities, where there are very good policies, not subject to favouritism or carelessness in administration, individual case work is still necessary if the policies are to remain good and be kept up to date.
  One should look at it also from the individual's point of view. Many of us have had the experience of having to tell a constituent, "I am extremely sorry, but, in fairness to other people, you cannot have what you want now". The constituent goes away from an interview like that disappointed, but, very often, disappointment is not his only reaction. There may sometimes be
  158
  something of real value to him in feeling, "I have not got What I wanted, but I am satisfied that I am not being discriminated against. I know that I have had a fair deal even if that fair deal does not give me what I should like". In a democracy, it is an important task to be able to explain to people that they are getting a fair deal even if it is not the particular deal which they would like.
  I do not accept the Minister's argument that we can afford to reduce the number of councillors because these individual contacts are not necessary. That he should advance that argument shows that he has not properly considered the real nature of the councillor's work.
  The other major theme of the Minister's speech was the nature of the concession he was offering. I do not want to be ungrateful. I can well appreciate that hon. Members opposite were, quite naturally, very glad to feel that a breach between them and a member of their Government was being narrowed. If I may say so, I never have very much respect for people Who enjoy disagreeing with their own party. It is something which, as a matter of conscience, a man may have to do occasionally, but it is not something which a good man ever does without regret. I want to explain to hon. Members opposite why I do not think that what the Minister offered was a concession of substance.
  The Minister has said that he will look at the matter again, but he will bring back to us another fixed figure, which may be a larger one. When I say a fixed figure, I mean a maximum, of course; we are speaking of a maximum all the time. There is no question at all of a single fixed figure for every borough so that they are all the same size. If he brought back anything different, the Minister would bring back a different maximum higher than 60, and he said that he must do that because one could not have each borough deciding what size it would be.
  Sir K. Joseph Sir K. Joseph indicated dissent.
  Mr. Stewart: If it was not the right hon. Gentleman, it was the Parliamentary Secretary who advanced that argument. There is no question under the Bill of any borough being able to decide by and for itself what size it

  159
  would be. The Bill clearly lays down that the Minister will decide the number of councillors in each borough, whether the Amendment be carried or not.
  What the Amendment deals with is this. Granted—and we fully accept it—that the Minister ultimately must decide the size, ought he to tie himself by fixing a maximum in advance? It is this point that the Minister has not conceded. The whole weight of our argument has been that, if we want to have things right and if we do not want to appear to be dictating to boroughs or imposing upon them, the Minister ought to start his job of deciding for each borough how big it shall be without any shackles on his hands.
  I do not regard it as a very valuable concession to say that he will merely make his tethering chain about a foot longer. He will do the job better without any tethering chain at all. There is no danger in it. No one supposes that, if the limit is removed, boroughs will ask for, or Ministers will grant, councils of an absurd and unwieldy size. What neither the Minister nor the Parliamentary Secretary has answered is the question, "Why is a fixed maximum needed?". We have had two reasons given, but neither is a reason of substance.
  The Parliamentary Secretary said that local authority associations want it.
  Mr. Corfield: Agreed to it.
  Mr. Stewart: In that case, the hon. Gentleman's argument is even weaker.
  Mr. Corfield: Perhaps I should make this clear. The initiative came from the Department. It was put to the associations, who agreed that this was sensible.
  Mr. Stewart: Then it cannot be said that we shall in any way be displeasing the local authority associations if we take the fixed maximums out. My task is made a good deal easier. From what was said earlier, I thought that the associations positively wanted it. Apparently, they do not want it. The idea did not come from them. I do not think that the individual councils wanted it. There is not much in that reason which the hon. Gentleman gave.
  The other argument advanced by the Parliamentary Secretary was his extraordinary argument about uniformity. He
  160
  compared what we want now with what we were asking for on the earlier Amendment. I ask him to consider, as a matter of logic and common sense, the nature of the analogy he was offering the Committee. On the last Amendment, we were arguing about the dignity and status of councils. Now, we are arguing about their size. Can it logically be said that, if we want all councils to be equal in dignity and status, we ought, therefore, to want them all to be equal in size? Obviously not. The underlying point is that there should be equal respect for all councils. In the last Amendment, we tried to give them equality and status. In this Amendment, we are trying to provide for every council the opportunity of achieving a size which will enable it to do its work best. The figure will vary from one to another.
  Why should we shackle ourselves by saying, "Whatever the facts, whatever the evidence and whatever the arguments put forward at the inquiry, we can never go above 60 "? No real reason has been given as to why that shackle should be on. If the Minister is convinced that he should never go above a certain figure, he can enforce that administratively. There is no reason why he should tie himself in advance before he has had the maps and all the plans for drawing up the wards of the boroughs set before him, or for imposing this drawback on himself.
  It is no answer to say that all this is based on experience. The metropolitan boroughs, provincial county boroughs, and other authorities have been quoted as examples which tend to point towards a figure of this kind. But it is not much good arguing from experience when one is introducing a Bill which creates a new kind of authority. We have never had borough authorities of this size in the Metropolis before. They have a status in the local government hierarchy that is unique, only a little lower than that of county boroughs. When giving boroughs of a size unfamiliar in the Metropolis a range of functions which is not exactly paralleled in local government, surely the reasonable course is to say, "When we are taking decisions about their size and constitution, we should not tie ourselves too rigidly in advance."
  I have not taken part in official consultations about how boroughs should be

  161
  rearranged into wards, but, naturally, I have talked the matter over with a good many people who have experience of local government. We have looked at various boroughs and considered what would be a sensible division of them into wards if the Bill went through. I am sure that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary realise that it is a very complicated matter. Exactly where should the boundaries be? What should be the size of each ward? If another condition of the puzzle is that the total must never be more than 60, that is not a very satisfactory arrangement. It makes the task more difficult and in no way increases the chance of obtaining a better administrative result.
  For these reasons, I feel that the Amendment should be supported. If it were defeated, we should regard the Amendment of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) as better than the present arrangement, since if we must try to do an important job with a ball and chain round our leg there is something to be said for making the chain a little longer or the ball a little lighter. But that is all that the hon. Member's Amendment does.
  If it is meant to be a paving Amendment for the abolition of aldermen, as I think the hon. Gentleman half suggested, some hon. Members on both sides will not regard that as a recommendation, and it will mean that we shall get back again to councils of about the maximum size that they will be under the Bill. It is not infrequent in local government for people to be first councillors, then aldermen and sometimes councillors again. This is quite frequent in the Metropolis. Aldermen have as much individual contact with the electors as councillors. I cannot feel very enthusiastic about the Amendment of the hon. Member for Orpington.
  Why cannot the Minister accept my hon. Friend's Amendment? He has gone so far as to say that he will accept possibly the idea of a higher maximum, but let him cast his mind back on this debate and ask himself whether he, the Parliamentary Secretary, his hon. Friends or anyone on this side have produced a convincing reason why there should be a statutory maximum? This does not even give opportunity to deal with the growth of population. I think that I am
  162
  right in saying that there is no provision in the Bill for the Minister to raise the maximum by order, which, considering the number of powers he has taken in the Bill to do things by order, is remarkable. It would at least be something if he said that he will introduce a Clause in the Bill whereby he can vary the figure of 60 by administrative order and give himself permission to go above 60.
  No one has given a convincing reason why there should be a fixed maximum. I do not think I misrepresent hon. Members opposite when I say that, although they welcomed the Minister's limited assurance, they have shown in their speeches that they do not believe that a fixed maximum of any kind is necessary or desirable. It is for my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) to decide, but that is why I feel that it would be right to press the Amendment to a Division, unless the Minister says that he will do what we all want him to do.
  Cannot he say that he will accept the Amendment? Would the consequences be so dreadful? Are the people who wait for him at the Ministry so formidable and so determined to reduce the number of councillors? Are they so influenced by the offensive argument of the Royal Commission that councillors are a poor lot and, therefore, the fewer of them there are the greater the chances of there being 9ome possibility of improving the quality?
  Does the right hon. Gentleman stand in so much awe of all that that he cannot stand up with his authority as a Minister and say, "I have heard a debate in which every Member who has spoken except myself and the Parliamentary Secretary has argued against the fixed maximum. Neither I nor the Parliamentary Secretary has produced any convincing reason why there should be a fixed maximium. Therefore, I am prepared to accept the arguments advanced and say that, although I shall not let the number of councillors grow to silly proportions and I still have my power in the rest of the Bill to determine the size of each counciil, I will not go into this job with an unnecessary shackle tied to my limbs."
  The right hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to do that. If he does it,

  163
  he will earn the gratitude and admiration of hon. Members on both sides, which will stand him in good stead in later and more formidable parts of the Bill.
  Mr. F. Harris: From the word "go" I have felt that the Bill is being imposed on us from the Department concerned. In spite of my right hon. Friend's reply, I appeal to him to take more note of the feeling of some of his hon. Friends.
  7.15 p.m.
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary used facts which, with the greatest respect, were completely wrong. He did not seem to know his subject at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am very sorry, but these are the facts and those of us who feel deeply about local government are entitled to make these statements.
  My hon. Friend took the population of one of the new Greater London boroughs similar to Croydon, with a population of 340,000. He divided it by the number of representatives which it would have, 60, and came to the figure of 5,600. But in a population of 340,000 one does not have 340,000 electors. One has a figure about 30 per cent. less. Further, my hon. Friend disregarded altogether the ward system.
  Is it the Government's intention to do away with two or three representatives per ward? All this is most disturbing and it does not appear that the Government are thinking these matters out. I appeal strongly to them to understand that under their proposals the new Greater London boroughs will be entirely new features. They have not existed before. We in Croydon up to now have had 64 representatives, councillors and aldermen. Our population increases by about one-third. We are then told that we shall have 70 representatives. There is no sense in a restriction of this kind.
  I am not in favour of a fixed number coming back into the Bill—for example, raising the number from 60 to 70 or from 70 to 80. Surely we should have enough confidence in local authorities to be able sensibly to decide how many representatives are needed and for the councils themselves, in discussion with the Minister, to come to that conclusion. It cannot be said that councils and represented bodies and those who give
  164
  their work in this way are not in a position to be able to arrive at a sensible figure for the representation that is needed for their area. Every area is different. Some areas are much larger than others and some are much more concentrated.
  I sincerely hope that the Amendment, without a limitation, will be pressed. I shall certainly vote for it, because I definitely feel that a limitation should not be brought in.
  Captain Litchfield: My right hon. Friend the Minister has made a remarkable concession during the debate for which his hon. Friends are extremely grateful. It would be helpful to his hon. Friends and would help them to put them out of their agony if he would accept the Amendment.
  I cannot see that my right hon. Friend would give much more away by accepting the Amendment, because he would still retain ultimate power to decide whether to present a figure to the House. It would be a great help, without sacrificing anything in substance, if my right hon. Friend would accept the Amendment, which commits him to nothing.
  Sir K. Joseph: I will try to explain to the Committee, and particularly to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Captain Litchfield), why a maximum is a matter of principle. The Government have embarked on a large-scale countrywide review of local authority boundaries and, in some cases, functions. This is not an operation that makes any Government deeply popular. It is conducted with one overriding objective: to improve the service of local government to the citizen.
  Part of the underlying principle that the Government believe to be at stake here is what the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) and I were discussing across the Boxes just now, namely, that above all, councils should be policy-making bodies. I agree with the hon. Member for Fulham that that implies that individual councillors should be able to make sure, by constant personal contact with electors and constituents, that (a) the policy is right or should be changed and (b) the policy is being carried out properly. Of course, I accept and welcome that councillors have a great deal of contact with electors.

  165
  The Government stand, however, for a size of council that is not so large that policy-making becomes very difficult, and yet, obviously, not so small that the committees cannot be manned properly and the councillors cannot do their job with the electorate, in the council chamber and with the council officials. That is why I stick on a statutory maximum.
  It is true that my successors, or the successors of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, where he is involved, will be able administratively to control the size of councils in response to warding schemes put forward by councils when seeking incorporation orders or variations of wardings. It is, however, for us, in the Bill, to set a principle or standard to show that we aim at councils of the sort of size which I have described. That is why I ask my hon. Friends, and particularly my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea, to realise that this is nothing capricious. There is a principle at stake.
  I am willing to look again at the particular figure and to move towards the sort of size that hon. Members obviously have in mind, but it will, I hope, be understood that I still stick on the principle of a maximum.
  Mr. Ede: This comparatively trivial Amendment has now become the vehicle for a declaration of national policy. Let us be in no doubt about that. Many of us suspected that this was a try-out, not merely to murder the London County Council, but for a scheme to be applied throughout the country. If we are to be told as we go on to the discussion of orders elsewhere that this principle of a maximum is to be regarded as an essential part of Government policy, let us be quite certain that there will be a great deal of trouble when efforts are made to apply this principle to some of the great corporations from whom statistics have been given this afternoon.
  Sir K. Joseph: The right hon. Gentleman is going far further than is justified. I am talking about where, in the nature of things, new local authorities are created, as is happening here. I maintain that size has this aspect of principle about it. I was introducing
  166
  my remarks by saying that the Government would not have embarked upon this laborious policy of local government reform if they did not have views on which they must stand, not simply on this matter, but throughout the world of local government. In applying this policy to London government, we have to show that that means that we want a policy-making council and that its size should reflect that.
  Mr. Ede: I want to see a policymaking council. I also want a policymaking Government. The speech of the Minister a few minutes ago was a declaration of policy, which he purposely and plainly linked with the wide task that he will have to undertake in the provinces when this Measure has been disposed of.
  The whole of the argument in this debate, from speakers on the Government side as well as from critics on this side, was against fixing a maximum. The Minister is setting himself an impossible task to go into negotiation when the various articles of incorporation are drafted, when he will have to get down straight away to the problem of the number of wards and the number of councillors to be elected.
  I hope that my hon. Friends will proceed to a Division on this matter so that we make it clear that on this issue, which the right hon. Gentleman has raised to the height of national principle and not of local convenience, we are against him on the whole of the argument that he has adduced to us.
  Sir Leslie Plummer: I apologise to the Minister for not having heard the whole of his speech. I was called out by a constituent who has five children and who lives with his wife in two rooms and a kitchenette in a house in part of my constituency, and asks how long he must go on living in these dreadful conditions.
  I was usurping the role of some of my constituent's local councillors. I have more time, perhaps, than they have and I was able to devote half an hour or forty minutes to the dreadful conditions in which this man and his wife and children are living. This is not a job that can be left to officials. It is not a job that a representative of the people, whether a councillor or a Member of Parliament, can delegate to somebody

  167
  else. These people want us, either as Members of Parliament or as councillors.
  Every hon. Member has had sufficient experience of constituents coming to say that they cannot get anything or any satisfaction from the officials. They do not want to talk to those faceless people more than they have to. They want to talk to a member of the authority.
  7.30 p.m.
  What is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting? We have in my constituency a council composed of 36 councillors and half a dozen aldermen. When Deptford gets its shotgun marriage with Lewisham, Deptford will have 15 councillors or thereabouts, and 15 councillors are to do the work of 36 councillors and half a dozen aldermen. How are they to do it? They will have an immeasurable increase in work. They will have to have an even more active participating interest in the problems of house building in the constituency. They have to be responsible for health services in the constituency. They will have to put themselves out to an even greater degree than they do at present.
  Really, the right hon. Gentleman does an injustice to councillors when he 'thinks they get any amusement or any pleasure. It is an unfortunate phrase, and I am glad the right hon. Gentleman does not want to repeat it. But that here is no particular pleasure or happiness in having to deal with the suffering and misery of people who find themselves in conditions which are bad through no fault of their own.
  Now what is to happen? I understand that Lewisham Borough Council has about 45 members. Deptford has a council of about 40. This total of about 80 is to be reduced to something like 60 under the Bill, and this, says the right hon. Gentleman, is a matter of principle. As a matter of principle, may I ask what is to happen to the 200 members of the City of London Corporation? [HON. MEMBERS: "Policy makers."] Are they to have more to do? My hon. Friends say they are policy makers.
  Mr. Mellish: Hypocrites.
  Sir L. Plummer: Are they to be reduced to fewer than 200—to 60?
  Mr. Mellish: Certainly not.
  Sir L. Plummer: Will there be only 60 of them? I very much doubt whether this Government will go to the members of the Court of Common Council of the City of London and say, "You are to come down to 60". There will be an exemption made for the burgesses there, while in constituencies and areas such as that which I represent there are to be fewer councillors doing more work.
  Mr. Mellish: I was given 'this figure only the other day, and it comes from the Registrar General's office, and in the area of which my hon. Friend is talking the population is expected by 1970 to go up to about 400,000.
  Sir L. Plummer: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for helping me to make my speech. He always improves my speech with every intervention he makes. He has thoroughly succeeded in breaking my train of thought which I was following, but nevertheless he has added considerably to my argument.
  How are the representatives of the local authority to take on more Work with fewer people to carry the burden? "Ah," says the right hon. Gentleman, "they must leave it to the officials". Why should they leave it to the officials? How are they to leave it to the officials? In most of the London boroughs most of the councillors work all day long and they devote their evenings to their civic efforts. Are they to keep the staffs waiting for them every night? Of course they will not. They will have to go round the constituency, tramping round the wards, carrying a burden which will really be too much for them.
  I beg the right hon. Gentleman, if he really believes that the purpose of the Bill, and the Government's purpose, too, is to improve the lot of the citizen under local government—if this is the prime purpose of it—really to think again, and to think in terms of making local government available to the citizen more readily, and not barring him from it, as will happen in the proposed circumstances.
  Mr. Pavitt: I do not want to delay the Committee much longer, but I am extremely concerned with the final words of the Parliamentary Secretary. He made it clear that he does not want the Bill to be altered in any way. It seems to me

  169
  that of all the Amendments which we shall be facing for two days on the Floor of this Chamber, and certainly of all those which will face us in Committee upstairs, this is the one where we are actually giving something to the Government, and if the Government cannot see their way clear to taking what we offer, then it seems to me that when we get to the far more controversial issues it will be extremely difficult to get the Bill through.
  I therefore ask, in view of what every hon. Member has said, that the Minister should accept the higher figure as proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) effectively exploded the idea that there is a principle attached to this Clause or to the Minister's figures. Is seems to me that 'the Minister is simply digging in his toes out of obstinacy.
  Mr. Michael Cliffe: I fail to understand why there is such insistence on this figure of 60, when one considers that the purpose of the Bill is, as we are told it is, that we are to have enlarged local authorities which are to take on further and more responsibility. If that is so it will be necessary to have not only the right type of people as councillors, but to have the necessary number of councillors to undertake the amount of work they will be expected to do.
  Consider the proposals affecting Islington and Finsbury and their amalgamation. There are at present 66 representatives for Islington and 38 for Finsbury. I have very little knowledge of what is taking place in Islington, but I do know a good deal of what is taking place in Finsbury and I can say sincerely that the 38 members of the Council are kept very busy indeed. The housing committee has not merely one meeting a month to consider whether or not to have a slum clearance scheme. It has to consider let-
  tings, and it is responsible for the building section, and it meets regularly three or four times a month, apart from two meetings at which it has to consider various aspects of the housing work.
  There are people with housing problems, and it is not good enough to say that as long as we have officials people can go along to the town hall and simply put their problems to them, for their answer will not be the sort of answer we feel ought to be given. It will be rather cold and calculating, such as, "You have not got a chance," and that sort of thing. There is a responsibility on the elected representatives at least to afford opportunity to the electorate to see them, in the event of their wanting to do so.
  In view of the fact that it is proposed that so much more work is to be undertaken by these enlarged local authorities I honestly think that to set the figure of 60 is hardly fair to the elected representatives who will be on the new, enlarged local authorities. I do not for the life of me see what my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) has said to lead anywhere to these difficulties. The local authorities have to apply to the Minister or to the Home Secretary if they want to increase their numbers. If they were to ask for a number which might be considered unreasonable, control is still in the hands of the Minister.
  I hope that the Minister will agree that the people sitting on local authorities are responsible people and will not ask for numbers larger than are genuinely considered necessary for the carrying out of public responsibility in the best interests of those they represent.
  Question put, That the words proposed words to be left out, to the end of line 20, stand part of the Clause:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 222, Noes 194.

  Division No. 25.]

  AYES

  [7.41 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Braine, Bernard

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Brewis, John

  Allason, James

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

  Bidgood, John C.

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Balniel, Lord

  Bishop, F. P.

  Buck, Antony

  Barber, Anthony

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Bullard, Denys

  Barter, John

  Box, Donald

  Burden, F. A.

  Batsford, Brian

  Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Holland, Philip

  Pitman, Sir James

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Hollingworth, John

  Pitt, Dame Edith

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Hopkins, Alan

  Pott, Percivall

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hornby, R. P.

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Chataway, Christopher

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

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

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Pym, Francis

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Cooke, Robert

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Rawlinson, Sir Peter

  Cooper, A. E,

  James, David

  Redmayne, Rt, Hon. Martin

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Ronton, Rt. Hon. David

  Corfield, F. V.

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Coulson, Michael

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Roots, William

  Craddock, Sir Berestord (Spelthorns)

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S)

  Ropner, Col. sir Leonard

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

  St. Clair, M.

  Crowder, F. P.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Curran, Charles

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Seymour, Leslie

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kitson, Timothy

  Shaw, M.

  Dance, James

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Shepherd, William

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

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

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Leavey, J. A.

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Drayson, G.B.

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  du Cann, Edward

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Duncan, Sir James

  Lilley, F. J. p.

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Longbottom, Charles

  Stodart, J. A.

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

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

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Farey-Jones, F. W,

  Mac Arthur, Ian

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Fisher, Nigel

  McLaren, Martin

  Taylor Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

  Foster, John

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Teeling, Sir William

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&N. Ayrs)

  Temple, John M.

  Gammans, Lady

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

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Gardner, Edward

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Macpherson, Rt.Hn. Niall (Dumfries)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Mcginnis, John E.

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Markham, Major sir Frank

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Marshall, Douglas

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Cordon

  Gough, Frederick

  Marten, Neil

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  van Straubenzee W. R.

  Green, Alan

  Mawby, Ray

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

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

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell

  Gurden, Harold

  Mills, Stratton

  Walder, David

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Walker, Peter

  Morgan, William

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Morrison, John

  Wall, Patrick

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Neave, Alrey

  Webster, David

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Hay, John

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Wise, A. R.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Page, Graham, (Crosby)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Hendry, Forbes

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Woodnutt, Mark

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

  Partridge, E.

  Woollam, John

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

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

  Peel, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Percival, Ian

  Mr. Chichester-Clark and

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Mr. Rees.

  NOES

  Abee, Leo

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

  Crosland, Anthony

  Ainsley, William

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Albu, Austen

  Boyden, James

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Bradley, Tom

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Deer, George

  Beaney, Alan

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Dempsey, James

  Bence, Cyril

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Diamond, John

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Carmichael, Nell

  Dodds, Norman

  Benson, Sir George

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Blackburn, F.

  Chapman, Donald

  Driberg, Tom

  Blyton, William

  Cliffe, Michael

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  Boardman, H.

  Collick, Percy

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  172

  173

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  King, Dr. Horace

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Lawson, George

  Rhodes, H.

  Evans, Albert

  Ledger, Ron

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Fitch, Alan

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Fletcher, Eric

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Ross, William

  Forman, J. C.

  Lubbock, Eric

  Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

  McCann, John

  Russell, Ronald

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  MacColl, James

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  McInnes, James

  Short, Edward

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Ginsburg, David

  Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  McLeavy, Frank

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Gourlay, Harry

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke N.)

  Greenwood, Anthony

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Small, William

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Manuel, Archie

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Mapp, Charles

  Snow, Julian

  Gunter, Ray

  Marsh, Richard

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Mason, Roy

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Steele, Thomas

  Hannan, William

  Millan, Bruce

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Harper, Joseph

  Milne, Edward

  Stonehouse John

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Stones, William

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Moody, A. S.

  Swain, Thomas

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Morris, John

  Symonds, J. B.

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Moyle, Arthur

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Hilton, A. V.

  Neal, Harold

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

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

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Holman, Percy

  Oliver, G. H.

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

  Holt, Arthur

  Oram, A. E.

  Thornton, Ernest

  Hooson, H, E.

  Oswald, Thomas

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

  Padley, W. E.

  Timmons, John

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Paget, R. T.

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Warbey, William

  Hunter, A. E.

  Parker, John

  Weitzman David

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Parkin, B. T.

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Whitlock, William

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Peart, Frederick

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Pentland, Norman

  Willey, Frederick

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Creech (Wakefield)

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Prentice, R. E.

  Willis E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, s.)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Probert, Arthur

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Kelley, Richard

  Rankin, John

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Redhead, E. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Ifor Davios and Mr. Grey.

  Amendment proposed: In page 2, line 21, leave out "sixty" and insert "seventy".—[Mr. Lubbock.]
  Question put, That "sixty" stand part of the Clause:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 218, Noes 192.

  Division No. 26.]

  AYES

  [7.50 p.m

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Crowder, F. P.

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Curran, Charles

  Allason, James

  Buck, Antony

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Bullard, Denys

  Dance, James

  Balniel, Lord

  Burden, F. A.

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Barber, Anthony

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Barter, John

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Batsford, Brian

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Doughty, Charles

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Cary, Sir Robert

  du Cann, Edward

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Duncan, Sir James

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Bidgood, John C.

  Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)

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

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Bishop, F. P.

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Bossom, Hon. Clive

  Cooper, A. E.

  Finlay, Graeme

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Box, Donald

  Corfield, F. V.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Coulson, Michael

  Foster, John

  Braine, Bernard

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Brewis, John

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Gammans, Lady

  Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.8irWalter

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Gardner, Edward

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Longbottom, Charles

  Ronson Brown, Sir William

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Roots, William

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Goodhart, Philip

  MacArthur, Ian

  Seymour, Leslie

  Cough, Frederick

  McLaren, Martin

  Shaw, M.

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Green, Alan

  Maclay, Rr. Hon. John

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

  Greaham Cooke, R.

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

  Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Gurden, Harold

  McMaster, Stanley, R.

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Macpherson. Rt. Hn. Niall (Dumfries)

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Marshall, Douglas

  Stodart, J. A.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Marten, Nell

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Mawby, Ray

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Hendry, Forbes

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Hiley, Joseph

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

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

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

  Mills, Stratton

  Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawa)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Teeling, Sir William

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

  Morgan, William

  Temple, John M.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Morrison, John

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

  Holland, Philip

  Neave, Alrey

  Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

  Hollingworth, John

  Nicholls, Sir Hartnar

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Hopkins, Alan

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Hornby, R. P.

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Partridge, E.

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Wakefield, Sir Waved

  James, David

  Peel, John

  Walder, David

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Percival, Ian

  Walker, Peter

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Pitman, Sir James

  Wall, Patrick

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S)

  Pitt, Dame Edith

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

  Pott, Percivall

  Webster, David

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Williams, Dudley (Exe'er)

  Kitson, Timothy

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

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Wise, A. R.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Pym, Francis

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Leavey, J. A.

  Rawlinson, Sir Peter

  WooHnutt, Mark

  Leburn, Gllmour

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Woollam, John

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Ronton, Rt. Hon. David

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. Chichester-Clark and Mr. Rees.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

  Ainsley, William

  Crosland, Anthony

  Ginsburg, David

  Albu, Austen

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Gourlay, Harry

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Grey, Charles

  Beaney, Alan

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Deer, George

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Bence, Cyril

  Delargy, Hugh

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Dempsey, James

  Gunter, Ray

  Benson, Sir George

  Diamond, John

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Blackburn, F.

  Dodds, Norman

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Blyton, William

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Hannan, William

  Boardman, H.

  Driberg, Tom

  Harper, Joseph

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

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

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Boyden, James

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Hilton, A. V.

  Bradley, Tom

  Evans, Albert

  Holman, Percy

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Fernyhough, E.

  Hooson, H. E.

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Fitch, Alan

  Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Fletcher, Eric

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Carmichael, Nell

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Hunter, A. E.

  Chapman, Donald

  Forman, J. C.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Cliffe, Michael

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Hynd, John (Atterclife)

  Collick, Percy

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  176

  177

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Neal, Harold

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Janner, Sir Burnett

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

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Oliver, G. H.

  Small, William

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

  Oram, A. E.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Snow, Julian

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Padley, W. E.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Paget, R. T.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Steele, Thomas

  Kelley, Richard

  Parker, John

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Parkin, B. T.

  Stonehouse, John

  King, Dr. Horace

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Stones, William

  Lawson, George

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontyprfdd)

  Swain, Thomas

  Ledger, Ron

  Peart, Frederick

  Symonds, J. B.

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Pentland, Norman

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Prentice, R. E.

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  McCann, John

  Probert, Arthur

  Thornton, Ernest

  MacColl, James

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  McInnes, James

  Rankin, John

  Timmons, John

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Redhead, E. C.

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

  Reynolds, C. W.

  Warbey, William

  McLeavy, Frank

  Rhodes, H.

  Weitzman, David

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  White, Mrs. Elrene

  Mallaliue, E. L. (Brigg)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Whitlock, William

  Manuel, Archie

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Mapp, Charles

  Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

  Willey, Frederick

  Marsh, Richard

  Ross, William

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  Mason, Roy

  Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Russell, Ronald

  Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E)

  Millan, Bruce

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Milne, Edward

  Short, Edward

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Moody, A. S.

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Morris, John

  Skeffington, Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Holt and Mr. Lubbock.

  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, in page 2, line 23, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 30 and to insert:
  "a group of ten or more local government electors living in the area of the proposed London borough shall have the right to make representations to the Secretary of State about the provisions of the incorporation order, and the Secretary of State if satisfied that there is a prima facie case for an alteration of the provisions of the order may cause a local inquiry to be made, and such notice given as he thinks expedient, and if satisfied that such alteration is desirable may amend the order accordingly."
  This Amendment, like that in line 18, deals with another case in which the rights and opportunities of the ordinary citizen are being diminished by the Bill. In the previous Amendments we were concerned with the number of representatives; in this case we are concerned with the opportunities and rights of an ordinary citizen to have some say in the distribution of wards, and in matters which are the subject of incorporation orders.
  We have to consider the Amendment against the background of disadvantage to which the citizens of the Greater London area are already subject as a
  178
  result of the Bill. Earlier, the Minister referred to the fact that the Government are involved in a nation-wide review of local government areas aimed at making more effective local government for the ordinary citizen. I am encouraged by that remark in moving this Amendment, for at the outset the citizens in the Greater London area already suffer some disadvantage as a result of the Bill as compared with citizens of the rest of the country.
  I do not know why, in this matter, they should be regarded as being rather second-class citizens. When a local government commission is at work outside the London review area—according to the memorandum issued by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government—it must first serve public notice of its intention to review, followed at a reasonable interval by consultations with all the local authorities in the area and with other bodies. It is important that other bodies, that is bodies other than local authorities, should have some say about the area in which they are to live. Then, having had these consultations, the commission is required to prepare draft proposals whether for

  179
  changing or preserving the existing boundaries and functions. These proposals must be put to the local authorities and other bodies who have been consulted, and made available for public inspection.
  Finally, the commission must confer with all interested local authorities and other bodies before its final proposals and its report on the review are formulated for submission to the Minister.
  So at least two or three opportunities for consultation are open to local authorities and the ordinary citizen through political parties, civic associations or other bodies that may be considered by the local government commission as having some status and connection with the area. After the final report of the local government commission for the area has been forwarded to the Minister, he examines it, and if he alters it and sends it back to the area notices again have to be given and an opportunity afforded to those interested to make further representation in connection with the new or revised plan.
  In London, the citizens have no such opportunities. What they have is the Royal Commission which produced this Report. We have had two debates in the House—a debate on the Royal Commission's White Paper and a debate on the Bill. We have had the visit of the four town clerks, but as far as I know this has been a semi-secret mission. I do not know any local body other than a council which was invited to make representations. These were largely consultations with the local authorities concerned. I have no objection to that, but in my view this operation must not be one which leaves out of account the rights and feelings of the ordinary citizen. I mention this background because it makes the Amendment all the more relevant and important.
  In consultation with local authorities the Minister will now decide the matters in Part III of the Schedule—the way in which the wards are to be distributed, and so on. But in a sense the ultimate responsibility is with the Minister, and again the ordinary citizen is losing what he has hitherto had in London and what he certainly has outside London—the right to make direct representations. The Amendment seeks to give the ordi-
  180
  nary citizen some opportunity to make his representations before the incorporation orders.
  In London he has certain rights, both under the 1933 Act and the London Government Act of 1939. In Section 25 (3) of the 1933 Act—the fundamental Act, where a petition, other than one produced by the local council, is presented, after certain procedures the matter can be considered by the Home Secretary. In certain cases he may decide that there should be an inquiry, and he then appoints a commissioner. Apart from local authorities, ordinary people, political associations and anybody else have the right, if a reasonable case has been made out, to have an inquiry held. These provisions are incorporated in Section 25 of the London Government Act, 1939. Subsection (2), which I have incorporated in the Amendment, refers to the Secretary of State's being satisfied that there is a prima facie case for an alteration. This case can be presented not only by the council but by any citizen or group of citizens.
  The kind of opportunity that has hitherto happened, and is now provided for in the future only in the Schedule and not in the Clause, is exemplified by what happened some years ago in the case of-the Borough of Camberwell. In that case the Conservative minority felt that there should be a re-warding, many years having passed since the borough was first warded. The Labour majority thought otherwise, but a group of citizens—not all councillors—sent a memorandum to the Home Secretary. He felt that there was a prima facie case. There was an inquiry and, as a result, the local council brought forward a scheme which became the ward reorganisation scheme for Camberwell. Ordinary citizens were given an opportunity to ensure the holding of an inquiry and to make representations. Some of them happened to be councillors, but others were not. They set on foot an alteration in the local government area in which they resided—an alteration which was ultimately felt to be more in keeping with contemporary conditions.
  Apparently, Part III of the First Schedule gives the citizen some rights It says:
  "If at any time the Secretary of State is satisfied as respects any London borough,

  181
  whether on representations made to him by the council of the borough or otherwise, that there are sufficient grounds for considering an alteration"
  of various kinds in the wards and the number of councillors themselves, he can cause notice to be given, and in due course an inquiry can be held.
  The Amendment seeks, first, to put this important right in the main part of the Bill and not merely in the Schedule. This gives it greater importance. More people are likely to know of that right than would be the case if it were to remain tucked away in the Schedule. But an even more important point about the Amendment is that it will also give citizens the right to say something before the incorporating orders are made. That is a particularly important point, which not only safeguards the future right of citizens but gives them a present right, before the orders become incorporated.
  The Amendment provides that any ten citizens or local government electors should have this right. It indicates that people must have had some local status. If a more appropriate formula can be devised I shall be quite happy. But I want to establish the principle that ordinary citizens should have some say if they establish that there is a prima facie case for change in respect of some of the matters which will in this case be the subject matter of the order.
  There are only two other points which I need to make regarding this Amendment. It suggests that the Ministry responsible should be the Home Office. I do not know whether, by the terms of the Amendment, I have taken away some right which it is essential that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government should have in connection with other parts of the Clause. I realise that this may be so and I should, of course, be perfectly prepared, were an undertaking given, to withdraw this Amendment or to move a subsequent Amendment to put the matter right. But regarding these inquiries, I wish to ensure that the Home Office is responsible. That is the Department which has always done this sort of work and those involved have great experience.
  I have appeared, both personally and in a professional capacity, before inquiries held by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and
  182
  also by the Home Office, and on the whole I believe that those conducted by the Home Office are more satisfactory. One reason is the Home Office nearly always appoints someone from outside to conduct the inquiry which provokes a greater sense of confidence than would be the case were an officer from the Department to conduct the inquiry, however well-intentioned that officer might be. So, therefore, I wish to ensure that these inquiries should be conducted by the Home Office which has traditionally done this work and done it very well.
  Were this Amendment accepted it would delete the section of Clause 1 to the effect that the expenses should be paid by the boroughs. If citizens are performing what ought to be a duty, I cannot see why the local ratepayers should be penalised. The expanses would not be very large and, as the matter overall is one which affects local government and as the Minister has said that it is the aim of the Bill to improve local government, the Government ought to be prepared to meet the moderate cost involved. Therefore, the Home Office would have to bear the expenses which would not be great.
  I consider the right of the ordinary person to cause a change, and not merely a local authority, is important and should be preserved in the main part of the Bill and not be dealt with in a Schedule to the Bill. I want all the citizens to have this right because citizens in the Greater London area have not had up till now the right which has been enjoyed by citizens in the review areas.
  Mr. David Weitzman: I hesitate to add anything further to this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) has moved his Amendment so clearly and it is so obviously an Amendment which ought to be accepted that I expected the Parliamentary Secretary to say immediately that he had no answer to the arguments advanced and was prepared to accept the Amendment. I have been studying what is stated in subsection (3):
  "Before a London borough's incorporation order is made, the Minister or, as may be appropriate, the Secretary of State shall cause such notices to be given and such, if any, inquiries to be held with respect to the matters

  183
  to be dealt with by the order as may appear to the Minister or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State to be expedient …"
  8.15 p.m.
  I assume that, translated into ordinary English, it means that we are absolutely in the power of the Minister and that it is within the absolute discretion of the right hon. Gentleman whether he orders an inquiry of any shape or pattern to be held. No one can demand an inquiry or compel the Minister to hold one. There is no real point in making representations.
  This Amendment is so obviously one which ought to be made that it ought to be accepted immediately. After all, the ordinary citizen has some rights. We have not yet reached the stage where a Minister is a complete dictator. Citizens are entitled to make representations regarding the borough in which they live and I should have thought the first thing to do would be to encourage citizens to show an interest in their borough.
  Mr. A. Lewis: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. But is he not aware that the Government are powerless to do that because they cannot even get two or three of their supporters to remain in the Chamber to listen to this debate? There has been only one hon. Member on the back benches opposite during the whole of the debate and he remained there for only about five minutes. Now, for the first time, there are three Ministers on the Government Front Bench. If the Government cannot persuade their supporters in this House to take an interest in the Bill they cannot expect to persuade people outside to take an interest.
  Mr. Weitzman: One recognises—as I am sure the Minister will recognise, now that he has graced the Chamber with his presence—the force of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis). It is remarkable, when we are discussing a Bill of this importance, which is so studded with principle as we were told a few moments ago by the Minister, that only one hon. Member opposite should be present in the Chamber.
  However, I return to the theme of the Amendment. I am glad to see that the Minister is present because I am sure that he will accept what I said a few
  184
  minutes ago. I read the words of subsection (3) and I hope I have interpreted them reasonably. They amount to the fact that the Minister in his discretion may make an incorporation order without holding any inquiry. We are absolutely in the power of the Minister.
  I was saying that it seems Obvious justice that when a change of some kind is to be made, and an incorporation order is being made to deal with extremely important powers which may well affect all the citizens in a borough, those citizens should be given an opportunity to make representations. I support this Amendment which proposes that a group of ten or more local government electors who live in the area should have the right to make representations about provisions in an order. Then it is suggested that if the Secretary of State is satisfied that there is a prima facie case he may cause a local inquiry to be made. What possible objection can there be to that provision? I have tried to think of arguments which might be advanced against it. It may be because I am stupid, or because of my mental inability, but I cannot think of any arguments or any answer which could be made to the suggestion that citizens should be given the opportunity to make representations and, if a prima facie case is made out, that an inquiry should be held.
  My hon. Friend pointed out that even the Government themselves recognised the justice of this Amendment by having a provision inserted in the Schedule where the power is given after the order has been made. If the power is given after the order has been made, why should it not be given before the order is made? Again I do not know. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister, if he is gracious enough to answer, will give us a reply on this matter. I cannot see why an Amendment of this kind, which on the face of it merely gives certain rights which obviously should belong to the citizen, should not be accepted. I hope, in spite of the fact that as a rule the Government plead that always they are so reasonable but they never give in, they will see the light on this occasion and accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Elwyn Jones: I support the reasonable and useful suggestion contained in this Amendment. I

  185
  hope that because the three hon. Members who have so far spoken on it are all lawyers the Committee will not have an unwarranted suspicion that lawyers have an interest in proliferating public inquiries. That would be a completely unworthy suggestion.
  The true explanation of the desire to make this Amendment is to involve the ordinary citizen at a very early stage in these important changes and give him the right to make his objections heard. It is not an Amendment, the Committee will notice, which requires the setting up of a local inquiry in all cases. It is a most responsible Amendment. The Committee will see that the machinery proposed is that the electors concerned, 10 or more, shall have the right to make representations. Even if the representations are made, the mere fact of making the representations will not automatically result in an inquiry being ordered for there is the following provision that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that there is a prima facie case for an alteration of the provisions of the order before he causes a local inquiry to be made.
  I am not very much wedded to the words "if satisfied", because it has been frequently held that there is no power to go behind the decision of the Secretary of State when he has power to do certain things "if satisfied", but at any rate it is better than the contents of the Clause itself as it stands. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) has pointed out, it gives no right of inquiry at all, however deserving the case. It is left entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State, or the Minister as the case may be, whether an inquiry is to be held.
  The sole criterion is whether it appears, or may appear, to the Minister or the Secretary of State to be expedient for an inquiry to be held. As I see it, there are no grounds in the Clause as it stands to compel the Minister in any circumstances to hold an inquiry. The words of the proposed Amendment do at any rate bring forward quite firmly the proposition that affected electors have the right to make representations. That seems very important. The right to make representations is one which certainly is not expressly stated as part of the machinery of the great changes
  186
  that are proposed. There is a very great danger in failure to consult with the ordinary man in the street and to have his knowing and satisfied support behind these great changes.
  The practice of holding public inquiries has become part of our democratic system. It is an important part. It not only gives an opportunity for the letting off of steam, but it gives an opportunity for any administrative decision which might result in grave public inconvenience to be exposed. One can think of many circumstances where the granting and assertion of this right could be of very great value indeed with regard to these great changes in local government. One of the difficulties about the operation of local government is the lack of public interest and excitement in it. It is something which it is our duty to foster. The granting, at the very outset of the introduction of these great changes, of the right to make representations and the requiring of the Ministers concerned to consider those representations, is something of value.
  Only the Minister who is afraid of the weapon of a public inquiry will oppose this reasonable Amendment. I should hate to attribute such callow fears to the members of the Government Front Bench, but they may well have a great deal to hide about some of these proposals. Therefore, it seems that the public interest will be served by quite firmly stating, as this most reasonable and responsible Amendment does, that there shall be a right to make representations, there shall be a duty—if 10 or more electors make such representations—on the part of the Ministers concerned to consider those representations with care and then, if it is found that a prima facie case exists for an alteration of the provisions of the order that a local inquiry should be held.
  I am not going to enter into the comparative merits of whether these inquiries are best conducted by the Home Office or the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I personally have no complaint about the conduct of either since certain recent substantial changes in procedures, and so on, were introduced, but that the costs of such inquiries should, as is suggested in the Clause as it stands, be borne by the

  187
  council, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), would be something of a hardship on local ratepayers and local authorities. I agree with him that when great democratic changes of this kind are introduced it is perfectly proper that the expenses resulting from public inquiries in the carrying out of those changes should be borne by the Exchequer.
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. W. R. Williams): Order. I hope that the hon. and learned Member will excuse me. It seems that it might be more appropriate to deal with the expenses side on the Amendment which is to follow. I excused the mover of the Amendment because I had not then put the Question in the form in which I had to put it. It seems quite clear now that that ought to be discussed on the next Amendment.
  Mr. Elwyn Jones: Thank you, Mr. Williams. I was misled by the zeal of my hon. Friend into pursuing matters which we shall enter into in greater detail when the time comes.
  Although I have no confidence that Ministers opposite will be influenced by reasonableness—in that I differ from my hon. and learned Friend—nevertheless I invite their reconsideration of this matter and their acceptance of this most useful and practical suggestion.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: I support the Amendment wholeheartedly. When I was Secretary of State I had on occasion brought to my notice boroughs in which wards had been fixed many years before and which had remained unaltered although the distribution of the electorate proportionally between the wards had very considerably changed as a result of the passage of time and the creation of new residential areas in a borough.
  One of the difficulties in those circumstances is to get the machine to start working. Local authorities are, quite rightly, resentful if a Minister, whether he be the Secretary of State or the Minister of Housing and Local Government, makes the suggestion to them that they have not been doing justice between one group of citizens and another. I wholeheartedly support, therefore, this right of ten local government electors to get the machine started.
  188
  The curious thing is that when an urban district becomes a borough, the electors lose the right of initiative which they have enjoyed while they have been living in an urban district. There they approach the county council to ask either that the district be divided into wards or that the wards be altered, and if the county council thinks that a prima facie case has been made out, it appoints a small number of its members to hold an inquiry and to make such recommendations as they think fit to the county council. If these are accepted by the county council or are accepted with amendment by the county council, the whole process is gone through quite expeditiously and economically. I therefore welcome this application of that principle. It was one of the things which I had noted to be dealt with if in my period of office the issue had ever arisen in legislation.
  It is out of date that the electors should not have the power of initiation in matters such as this. I sincerely hope that the Government will accept the part of the Amendment which we are allowed to discuss at this stage. After all, it would be some proof that the Minister, when he is faced with a thoroughly good case, can give way and will not ask us to accept the view that whoever drafted the Bill was acting under divine inspiration, for I find very little sign of that except in the Minister's mind.
  The Temporary Chairman: Mr. Woodhouse.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. C. M. Wood-house): Perhaps I might intervene out of courtesy to the Committee.
  Mr. A. Lewis rose—
  Mr. Woodhouse: I thought that you called me, Mr. Williams, but if I am mistaken I will gladly give way to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis).
  The Temporary Chairman: The Minister rose and I called the Minister, but if he prefers to give way I will call the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis).
  Mr. Lewis: Perhaps I can solve the problem by calling a count.
  The Temporary Chairman: We cannot solve any problem when two hon. Members are on their feet together.
  Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. I was about to start my remarks by calling attention to the fact that we have not 40 Members present.
  The Temporary Chairman: We have had a Division so recently that I cannot accept any proposition to that effect.
  Mr. Lewis: On a point of order.
  The Temporary Chairman: Is it another point of order? If it is the same point of order, I have ruled on it and there is no more to be said about it.
  Mr. Lewis: On a point of explanation.
  The Temporary Chairman: There is no question of explanation. It must be order or nothing. I have ruled that the first point which the hon. Member made is not a point of order. If he has another point of order, I am prepared to listen to it.
  Mr. Lewis: This is another point of order. Will you explain to me, Mr. Williams, why a count cannot take place? According to the Standing Orders, after 8.30 p.m. it is permitted.
  The Temporary Chairman: I satisfied myself in a recent Division that there are more than 40 Members available and, therefore, I am acting on precedent.
  Mr. Lewis: I am sorry to press this, but I have previously called counts after 8.30 p.m. when there has earlier been a Division within minutes, and Mr. Speaker and Mr. Deputy-Speaker have accepted that proposition. I took the trouble of looking up the Standing Order before rising to my feet to see whether such a proposal was in order. If I may, with great respect, Mr. Williams, refer you to the Standing Order, it makes no reference to whether there was a Division or whether Mr. Speaker or Mr. Deputy-Speaker was or was not aware of the numbers present in the Division. If attention is called to the fact that there are not more than 40 Members in the Chamber, surely it is in order to have a count. With great respect, there are not 40 Members present.
  The Temporary Chairman: I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Member, but I am not responsible for what Mr.
  190
  Speaker does or what Mr. Deputy-Speaker does. All I am responsible for is to rule here when I happen to be in the Chair. There is ample precedent for the Ruling which I have given. Mr. Woodhouse.
  Mr. Woodhouse: I intended no discourtesy in intervening at this point, but I thought that I might be able to help by clearing up one or two matters on which I thought there might have been a misunderstanding. If I am wrong in that assumption there is every opportunity to continue the debate.
  The very amiable way in which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) moved the Amendment, and the way in which he was supported by the hon. and learned Members for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) and West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) left me feeling a little less like the boy on the burning deck than was perhaps my hon. Friend who replied to the previous Amendment.
  I should like to begin by returning to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) the compliment which he paid the Home Office, because I know very well how helpful he has been in these matters to the Home Office in the time of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) as well as more recently. I am grateful to him for providing me the opportunity, by moving the Amendment, to give a fuller explanation of the subsection to which it refers, which deals with inquiries in connection with the original issue of incorporation orders for the new boroughs. It deals with inquiries either by the Minister of Housing or by the Secretary of State, according to the subject, because both contribute to different items in the ultimate incorporation order.
  The hon. Member's Amendment would have the incidental effect, which I assume he had not intended, of deleting the Minister of Housing from the subsection altogether. This is something which in any case could not be accepted, because there is a clear division of responsibilities within the context of these orders between the Minister of Housing and the Secretary of State, and they must both play their role whatever it is, in contributing to the order. Incidentally, I was going to point out,

  191
  if the Chair had not done so, that the hon. Gentleman's reference to expenses touched upon the immediately following Amendment, which will be debated separately.
  The incorporation orders will be made by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Therefore, provision is made in the Bill for him to arrange for any public inquiries he may think necessary. It would still be so even under the Amendment. The Amendment would still be permissive as to whether or not an inquiry was ultimately held at the Minister's discretion. It is impossible to say in advance what questions might need to be covered by such an inquiry. Therefore, some latitude was allowed in the drafting of the subsection in the words which the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North read, particularly
  "as may appear … to be expedient".
  A similar permissive phrase appears in the Amendment as drafted, which says that
  "the Secretary of State if satisfied that there is a prima facie case … may cause a local inquiry …"
  In principle there is no difference there in the latitude allowed.
  In addition to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has a special but limited responsibility in these incorporation orders, especially for two sectors of them—first, to make the arrangements necessary to enable the first elections to the new borough councils to be held and, secondly, to draw the initial ward boundaries within the borough. This is a delicate operation Which is likely to necessitate local inquiries of which notice will be given and the Home Secretary is thus introduced into this Clause on all fours with the Minister of Housing and Local Government. They are not alternative holders of inquiries. Either of them may hold inquiries according to the nature of the questions raised, and with regard to any particular borough there may be either two inquiries, one by each, or one or none, according to the way their discretion is exercised.
  It is to this provision of 'the Bill that the Amendment is directed. I am glad I was right in construing the intention of
  192
  the hon. Member for Hayes and Harling-ton to be that of making perfectly sure that the citizens' rights are not overlooked. I can assure him that that is the Government's intention, too. It is true that the provision for the initial division of the boroughs is less full than for the subsequent alteration of the wards within the boroughs provided by Part III of the First Schedule. In practice, however, I want to make it clear that the procedure to be followed when the initial division takes place will be essentially the same as that to be followed for alterations under Part III of the First Schedule, and at the request of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary local authorities in the Greater London area are already engaged in the preliminary steps to make it possible to make a start on the official job when the Bill becomes law.
  I should like to describe, lest there should be any misunderstanding, what this procedure is going to be. There will first be initial proposals, we hope agreed by the local authorities which the Home Secretary has already approached and which are at work on them, and these proposals will be published locally.
  Mr. Mellish: Ward proposals?
  Mr. Woodhouse: Yes. A period of at least one month will then be allowed for objections and representations to be made to these proposals, and they can be made by anyone. If these objections and representations show a clear prima facie case for examination, the Home Secretary, if it is the Home Secretary, will appoint a commissioner, or if it is the Minister of Housing and Local Government he will appoint an inspector. I think that the only essential difference between the two at this point, in answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, is that the Ministry of Housing has readily available to it a considerable corps of inspectors who can be appointed to fulfil these functions from its own staff, whereas the Home Office has no such body of people readily available and therefore goes outside to the legal profession, to the great advantage of the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South, to find a commissioner experienced and qualified in these matters to hold an inquiry.

  193
  I do not in the least share the suspicions which the hon. and learned Gentleman tried to sow in my mind against the legal profession in this matter. When the inquiry is decided upon, it will be given full publicity, and when it is held the commissioner will then draw up a scheme, taking into account, so far as possible, all the points of view put to him, and he will submit the scheme to the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend will then consider the scheme and, if satisfied with it, will hand it over to the Minister for incorporation in the order.
  8.45 p.m..
  I think that hon. Members opposite have taken the point that I am referring to inquiries on the part of the Home Secretary. The procedure of the Minister in inquiries into functions within his responsibilities will follow exactly the same course, except that they will be conducted by an inspector and not by an outside commissioner. This, in effect, will be the same procedure as that laid down in Part III of Schedule 1 with the same safeguards, the same publicity and the same opportunity for local views to be heard. It is true that all this is permissive, but it would still be permissive under the terms of the Amendment.
  The question can fairly be asked: if the procedure similar to Part III of the First Schedule is to be followed and if similar notice is to be given and inquiries to be held, why should this not be spelled out in detail in the Bill? This is a fair question, but there is a good answer to it. The subsection should be looked at as a whole and in the context of Clause 1 as a whole. It deals with one specific matter which arises only at the beginning of this whole exercise of establishing the new Greater London Council.
  It is a matter which the Committee will realise must be dealt with with flexibility and speed, because if the elections are to be held on time there will not be a great deal of time available for the elaborate process that must be gone through. If the Bill were to provide in detail not only for every step that would have to be taken by the Home Office in the division of wards but also—and this would have to be done in the same detail—open every other matter that might have to be considered in preparing an
  194
  incorporation order—I do not think that it needs much imagination to see, bearing in mind that there will be 32 such orders to be got out in the space of perhaps not much more than sixty days—
  Mr. Weitzman: Does that mean that the Minister will hold no inquiries at all or that he will hold only such inquiries as he thinks fit?
  Mr. Woodhouse: He will hold—as he would under the terms of the Amendment—such inquiries as in his discretion he thinks justified. This does not differ from the present practice, and, as I said, it does not differ even from the Amendment.
  Mr. A. Evans: As I understand it, local authorities and other bodies can make representations to the Home Secretary and inquiries can be held. When the Minister brings in an incorporation order, however, there is nothing in the Bill to say that a local authority may ask for an inquiry. Is this not so?
  Mr. Woodhouse: No. It is exactly the same for the Minister as for the Home Secretary; that representations can be made by any individual or any body, and this is the procedure that will be followed. If we attempted to go into exhaustive detail in this initial process, the result would be to add to the Bill yet one more enormous Schedule of monstrous length and one which would be a spent force immediately after the Bill had been carried into law and the first operation effected.
  I would now like to touch on one aspect of considerable individual importance which is raised in the Amendment. It is that point which confers the right to make representations on any group of ten or more local electors. I have every sympathy with the principle underlying that proposal, but I would point out that the procedure set out in Part III of the First Schedule—which is similar to that under Section 25 of the 1939 Act—makes it possible for such representations to be made by anyone and does not limit it to any numerical group of the population. It contains no provision giving a specified right to a group and it places no bar upon any particular number of people making representations. In other words, it leaves it free to anyone to make representations,

  195
  and it is the regular practice to take account of all representations that may be made, whether by individuals or groups. Therefore, on this point it would not make any difference whether the Amendment said that it was ten or more than ten electors. In practice, the representations of anyone whether as individuals or as groups would be taken into account.
  If, on the other hand, we were to write into the Bill, as the Amendment proposes, a minimum number whose representations would have to be taken into account, that would carry at least the implication that the representations of the single individual would not be taken into account and could be ignored. This might act as discouragement to the individual from putting forward his own point of view, which under the present procedure he is perfectly free and welcome to do. These are the reasons why my right hon. Friend cannot accept the Amendment, which would have the effect of hampering both the freedom of action of Ministers and the freedom of action of ordinary citizens. I hope that, having heard the explanation, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington can see his way to withdraw the Amendment, reassured in the knowledge that citizens' representations are safeguarded in the way he desires.
  Mr. Mellish: None can complain of the charming and pleasant way in which the Joint Under-Secretary of State has put his case, but he has missed the obvious. He has no right to talk about this being a democratic Bill or about the rights of people to represent their point of view. The Bill has been imposed on the citizens of London without any consultation at all with Londoners. The Government have no mandate to introduce a Bill which will completely change and to a large extent smash local government in the London area. At no time have people been consulted about their views on it.
  We have had presented to us a Bill which provides that by Act of Parliament certain boroughs will now be merged. We wish as a last resort that on issues of boundaries and certain other matters in Part III of the First Schedule which will be known to them the electors shall be entitled to make representations
  196
  in the way we have described in the Amendment. This is a matter on which we think citizens have democratic rights. The hon. Gentleman and many other hon. Members opposite act as if they took for granted that most people in London are dissatisfied with their local government. This is not true. Too many people have the idea that the Londoner does not care about his town or borough. But the Londoner is very parochial. He is a south-east Londoner or a north-Londoner, and so on. It means a great deal to him. The boundaries of his own ward mean a great deal to him.
  The Government bring forward a Bill without consultation to bring together parts of London which have never been married before, with consequent tremendous changes in boundaries. All the boundaries will be altered and the sizes of wards vastly extended. In many parts of London, and certainly in the part which I represent, there is a tremendous local history which cannot be ignored. However difficult it may be for the Parliamentary draftsmen, and however much it will increase the size of the Bill, it is right that these matters should be written into the Bill.
  The Minister knows what we want to do with the Bill and, therefore, it does not matter to us if the Bill is bigger. All we want is to get more sense into the Bill and to know exactly what are the citizen's rights. They are to have the right of appeal against the boundaries, the number of councillors in the borough and the apportionment of councillors. This ought to be done at a public inquiry and ought not to be left to the Minister to decide whether a case is made out.
  The whole system of democracy is being affected under the Government. The Minister of Transport has taken powers by which he can divert traffic in any paint of London without consulting the citizens. This may appear to be out of orderߞ—
  The Temporary Chairman: It goes beyond appearing to be out of order, I think.
  Mr. Mellish: Many of these rights have already been taken away, and it is proper that we as an Opposition should ensure that in all these matters the citizen shall have a chance of expressing

  197
  his point of view at a public inquiry. In spite of all the assurances by the Joint Under-Secretary of State, I hope that we shall take this Amendment to a Division.
  Mr. Skeffington: I should like to thank the Joint Under-Secretary of State for his full and courteous explanation. At any rate, we are in a better position on this Amendment than we have been on other Amendments. I understand that it would be necessary to include the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and, were The Government prepared to accept this Amendment, Chat Minister could easily be added to the Amendment.
  An interesting point which has emerged from the hon. Gentleman's speech is that if anybody wishes to make representations he will have a period of one month in which to do so. I understand that such a person will have an opportunity of doing this before the order of incorporation is made. I should like to know what is the authority for that statement. I cannot find it in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman went on to say, "It is very difficult to put all this in. We have got to have 32 orders. They have got to go through the machine fairly quickly. Therefore, we cannot do it in much detail."
  I am fairly innocent myself, but I felt that it was asking rather a lot to expect us to take all that on trust. I can hardly see the Secretary of State holding an inquiry if one person were to object, but if the Government were in favour of this surely it would be easy to put in the Schedule, if not in the Clause, the fact that the citizen has such a right. No citizen reading the Bill would know that he had this right. The fact is extraordinarily well concealed. Therefore, before we make any further decision, I should like to know where in -the Bill the authority is given that any one person can make representations and will have a month in which to do so, and that this will apply to the order as well as subsequently after the order is made.
  Mr. A. Evans: It is important that we should clear our minds on exactly what Che procedure will be when the Minister brings in his incorporation order. We have been told that when that order is introduced not only will it be possible for the local authority or representative
  198
  bodies to make representations to the Secretary of State regarding ward boundaries and so on, but that on incorporation it will be possible under the Bill for a representative body or local authority in a given area to put forward proposals for an inquiry and to make suggestions to the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Reiterating the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), where in Che Bill is that fact made clear?
  Mr. Woodhouse: The authority for what I have said, for which the hon. Gentleman has asked, rests on my consultations with my colleagues in preparation for this occasion. I have explained what the procedure will be under the Bill. I have explained, also, why it is not made explicit and every particular step is not spelled out in the same detail as it is in Part III.
  I repeat again, and emphasise, that everyone has the right to make representations. Of course, that is not the same thing as the right to require or demand or impose an inquiry. The holding of an inquiry rests within the discretion of the Minister concerned, but anyone, not merely 10 citizens as proposed in the Amendment, has the right to make representations.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Elwyn Jones: Could not there at least be some intimation as to the content of the notices to be given? There is no intimation in the Clause as it stands that the notices shall express a right of representation. There is no clue in the Clause as to what the content of the notices will be. The Minister gives us his personal assurance, but, with very great respect, on such an important constitutional matter, I should have thought that it could be embodied as part of the Clause that there should be, at least, some indication as to the content of the notices. Could the Minister meet us on that?
  Mr. A. Evans: We have been assured by the Under-Secretary of State that Part III of the First Schedule will apply to the Secretary of State and equally to the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
  As regards the Secretary of State, the procedure is clearly laid down in Part III of the First Schedule, and it is said in

  199
  words that the council of a borough can put forward proposals, and so on. If the same circumstances obtain as regards the Minister of Housing and Local Government, that representations can be made to him upon incorporation, that equally should be laid down in the Schedule. It is laid down as regards the Secretary of State. Should not it also be laid down as regards the Minister of Housing and Local Government?
  Mr. Woodhouse: With respect, I did not say that Part III would apply equally to both Ministers. I said that the procedure would be similar.
  Mr. Ede: Can the Under-Secretary of State point to the words in the Bill on which he bases his statement that what he described to us is, in fact, the procedure under the Bill? I gather that he said that he had been present at some conversations which were held. It would be no good an aggrieved citizen going to the courts or complaining to his Member of Parliament that he was not present at the conversations but the Minister was, and then, after reference to the minutes at the time, finding that there is no statutory basis for the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
  Mr. Woodhouse: The statement I made was in explanation of the subsection, to make clear how it would be applied.
  I did explain that these words are not in the Bill and, of course, I cannot point to them. I was explaining how the provisions of the Bill were to be carried out in practice.
  Mr. Elwyn Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman say something about my suggestion regarding the notices? A notice may merely state that an incorporation order is to be made. It may give no indication to the citizen about his right of representation at all.
  Mr. Woodhouse: The hon. and learned Gentleman will understand that I could not myself give an undertaking in that sense now, but I will certainly convey his suggestion to my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Skeffington: The hon. Gentleman has been very courteous and patient. May I ask him to note also that, of course, citizens outside London have had two or three opportunities. Now, at least, we shall have one month after an order is published, but it is very little.
  Mr. Woodhouse: In London, also, there have been ample opportunities for making representations, for instance, to the Royal Commission.
  Question put, That the words proposed to be left out, to "and", in line 27, stand part of the Clause:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 229, Noes 185.

  Division No. 27.]

  AYES

  [9.5 p.m.

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Chataway, Christopher

  Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Allason, James

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Finlay, Graeme

  Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Balniel, Lord

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Barter, John

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Foster, John

  Batsford, Brian

  Cooke, Robert

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

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Gammans, Lady

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Corfield, F. V.

  Gardner, Edward

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Coulson, Michael

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Bidgood, John C.

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Bossom, Hon. Clive

  Crawley, Aidan

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Box, David

  Crowder, F. P,

  Goodhart, Philip

  Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Cunningham, Knox

  Goodhew, Victor

  Braine, Bernard

  Curran, Charles

  Cough, Frederick

  Brewis, John

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Dance, James

  Green, Alan

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Buck, Antony

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Crosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Bullard, Denys

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Burden, F. A.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  du Cann, Edward

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Duncan, Sir James

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Eden, John

  Hastings, Stephen

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Hay, John

  Cary, Sir Robert

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

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Channon, H. p. G.

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Hendry, Forbes

  Maginnis, John E.

  Seymour, Leslie

  Hiley, Joseph

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Sharples, Richard

  Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon Charles (Luton)

  Marshall, Douglas

  Shaw, M.

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Marten, Neil

  Shepherd, William

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

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

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

  Hocking, Philip N.

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

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Holland, Philip

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Hollingworth, John

  Mills, Stratton

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Hopkins, Alan

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Stodart, J. A.

  Hornby, R. P.

  Morgan, William

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Morrison, John

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Neave, Airey

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Nlcholla, Sir Harmar

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Teeling, Sir William

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Temple, John M.

  James, David

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Partridge, E.

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S)

  Percival, tan

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Turner, Colin

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Pitman, Sir James

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Tweed8muir, Lady

  Kitson, Timothy

  Pitt, Dame Edith

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Pott, Percivall

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Leavey, J. A.

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

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

  Walder, David

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Walker, Peter

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Pym, Francis

  Wall, Patrick

  Longbottom, Charles

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Rawlinson, 8ir Peter

  Webster, David

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  McLaren, Martin

  Rees, Hugh

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Renton, Rt. Hon. David

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Wise, A. R.

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

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

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

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Woollam, John

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Roots, William

  Macmillan, Rt.Hn. Harold (Bromley)

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Macphelson, Rt.Hn. Niall (Dumfries)

  St. Clair, M.

  Mr. Peel and Mr. MacArthur.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Deer, George

  Hilton, A. V.

  Ainsley, William

  Delargy, Hugh

  Holman, Percy

  Albu, Austen

  Dempsey, James

  Holt, Arthur

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Diamond, John

  Hooson, H. E.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Dodds, Norman

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Barnett, Guy

  Driberg, Tom

  Hunter, A. E.

  Beaney, Alan

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Ballanger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Bance, Cyril

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Blackburn, F.

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Blyton, William

  Evans, Albert

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Boardman, H.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Jeger, George

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Fitch, Alan

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

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

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Jonas, Elwyn (west Ham, S.)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Forman, J. C.

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Bradley, Tom

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Kelley, Richard

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Ginsburg, David

  King, Dr. Horace

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Lawson, George

  Carmichael, Nell

  Gourlay, Harry

  Ledger, Ron

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Chapman, Donald

  Grey, Charles

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Cliffe, Michael

  Grimths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Collick, Percy

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Crosland, Anthony

  Hamilton, William (west Fife)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Hannan, William

  MacColl, James

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Harper, Joseph

  McInnes, James

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

  Davies, Ifor (Cower)

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  McLeavy, Frank

  202

  203

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Prentice, R. E.

  Stonehouse, John

  Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Stones, William

  Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Probert, Arthur

  Swain, Thomas

  Manuel, Archie

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Mapp, Charles

  Rankin, John

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Marsh, Richard

  Redhead, E. C.

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Reynolds, G. W.

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

  Millan, Bruce

  Rhodes, H.

  Thornton, Ernest

  Milne, Edward

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Timmons, John

  Moody, A. S.

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Tomney, Frank

  Morris, John

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Moyle, Arthur

  Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

  Warbey, William

  Neal, Harold

  Ross, William

  Weitzman, David

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

  Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Russell, Ronald

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Oram, A. E.

  Short, Edward

  Whitlock, William

  Oswald, Thomas

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Willey, Frederick

  Padley, W. E.

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, w.)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Parker, John

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Willis, E. C. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Parkin, B. T.

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Small, William

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Peart, Frederick

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Pentland, Norman

  Spriggs, Leslie

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Steele, Thomas

  Mr. Charles A. Howell and

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Mr. McCann.

  Mr. A. Evans: I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, to leave out from "expedient" to the end of line 30.
  The Amendment concerns the cost of any inquiry that might be made when the Minister makes an incorporation order setting up one of the new London boroughs or each of them in turn. The Minister, presumably, will make a separate incorporation order for each new London borough.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government will make the order and the local authority, presumably, has to accept its terms. The local authority is not likely to be anxious to have the new order incorporating it in a different arrangement. I think that, without exception, every local authority in the Greater London area has no desire to be incorporated under this Bill.
  9.15 p.m.
  The new London boroughs will consist of a number of local authorities brought together, and they will have the incorporation orders thrust upon them by the Minister, and they will have no say, presumably, in what the corporation orders will contain. I would have thought that the Minister would have made provision for consultation between himself and each local authority which will make up a new London borough in each case, I would have thought that he would have laid it down in the Bill or in the Schedule that consultations and agreements between the various local authorities and the Minister would take
  204
  place prior to the issue of an incorporation order. But such is not to be the case.
  As we read the Bill, we see that the Minister has the initiative and the existing local authorities have no initiative at all in the matter of the terms of their new incorporation. Indeed, as we read it they will not have the right to make representations to the Minister regarding the details of a new order for incorporation. From the terms of the Bill it seems that no provision is made for the local authorities which will make up a new London borough to be consulted or to confer with the Minister about the terms of the new order. Although the local authority is denied the right of representation to the Minister on the contents of the order, although the whole of the initiative is with the Minister and he lays down the wording and the figures which are to appear in the order, although the local authorities have no say in this matter at all, the Minister in this Clause is arranging that the local authority shall pay any cost which the Minister incurs in this matter.
  Although this is a comparatively small point and there is no great deal of money in it either for the Exchequer or the local authorities, nevertheless it seems unreasonable that the Minister should deny the local authorities which will be incorporated in a London borough the right of representation or to have any say in the wording of the order and yet at the same time expect them to pay any expenses which the Minister incurs in making the order.

  205
  We have been told by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that it will be possible for local authorities to make representations. We know that by Part III of the First Schedule the local authorities and other bodies may make representations to the Minister of State and the Home Secretary relating to questions of ward boundaries, and so on. But we were told by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary tonight that the same right to make representations to the Minister of Housing and Local Government in regard to incorporation orders would lie with the local authorities.
  With respect to him, my colleagues and I can only think that he has been misinformed. His assurance that they will have such rights of representation cannot be accepted. Therefore, through this Amendment, we seek to ensure that local authorities should have a right to make representations to the Minister during the compilation of incorporation orders affecting themselves. We say also that if they are to be denied that right and are not to be asked to play a part in the formulation of their new constitutions, they should not be called upon to pay the cost.
  Mr. Elwyn Jones: This Amendment is very reasonable. The whole of the machinery of what is proposed in the attempted demolition of London Government is an instrument of Government policy. There has been no clamour from the local authorities concerned asking for their own dissolution. This Measure is the result of a Government decision and it is to be carried through and enforced by Government action.
  Part of the machinery that is proposed, however, is a slight recognition of the possibility that local inquiries might, in certain circumstances, depending upon the will and discretion of the Minister, be held. We have already canvassed the wholly inadequate provisions of the Clause with regard to that, and our attempt to make the position more satisfactory has just failed. But it would seem to be an act of justice to the local authorities and the ratepayers that where in the occasional case the Minister or the Secretary of State does decide that a public inquiry is expedient, it is just that the expenses thereof should be borne by the Exchequer and not by the local authority.
  206
  After all, this is the pattern of inquiries into similar matters, and there seems no reason to depart from the principle that where these procedures result from deliberate Government policy the charge resulting from the carrying out of that policy should be a charge which the public at large, through the Exchequer, should bear. The proposal in the Clause adds injury and in many cases adds injury to insult.
  Mr. Weitzman: The words the Amendment seeks to omit add insult to injury. The boroughs did not ask for the Bill. Nobody except the Government asked for it. It is a piece of impudence on the part of the Government that, having imposed this sort of thing on the boroughs, they should say that if a borough shows that there is a case for an inquiry, it will have to pay the costs of the inquiry. It is colossal impudence and the Minister should accept the Amendment.
  Mr. W. Edwards: It is amazing that the Government should make this provision about possible inquiries. It is the Government who are making a mess of London local government, and if local authorities want to clear up the mess they ought not to be called upon to pay the expenses of that clearing up. That they should be asked to do so is absolutely shocking.
  The party opposite is the party which often maintains at municipal elections that it is the party which looks after the interests of ratepayers. Where is this looking after the interests of ratepayers when a charge which should obviously be borne by the Exchequer—for it is the Government who are causing all the bother—falls on local authorities? What is in the Minister's mind? Does he want to deter local authorities from going fully into these matters and so safeguarding the ratepayers? Is it a trick by the Government, or is it honest? Whether it is a trick or honest, this is one of the most unjust charges ever placed upon local authorities in any legislation. The Minister is keeping up to his reputation and is being as unjust as he can to local authorities, regardless of the fact that the Government are responsible for the situation and should therefore be responsible for the expenditure.
  Mr. M. Stewart: My hon. Friends have forcibly put the case in morals and

  207
  equity for the Amendment. Here is something for which the boroughs have never asked and which in the main they do not want and over which they have no control—they do not control whether there is to be an inquiry or the extent of the inquiry—and yet, none the less, they have to pay for it. It reminds me of the custom which used to be in force—I do not know if it still is—at Eton College. It used to be the practice there, if the behaviour of any of the scholars was such that he had to be corrected with the birch rod, that the instrument was used to such effect that it was thereafter useless and the cost was therefore added to the school bill which was presented to the culprit's parents. It seems that the boroughs are being treated in exactly the same manner, without having committed any offence. I shall be interested to hear what sort of defence is made of this provision.
  The Financial and Explanatory Memorandum says:
  "The expenses of Ministers under the Bill, e.g., in the conduct of inquiries under Part's I and II of the Bill … will also be payable out of monies voted by Parliament."
  Yet the first time that we come across an example of an inquiry arising from Part I the cost is paid out of the pockets of ratepayers and not out of moneys provided by Parliament. Why is that so? Why are the terms of the Financial Memorandum not being adhered to? We may be told that the Financial Memorandum does not mean that all the inquiries under Parts I and II will be paid out of moneys voted by Parliament.
  9.30 p.m.
  Let us have a look. What other inquiries are there under Part I? For example, under the provisions of Clause 6(3)—and I refer to this only very briefly; I believe that it is quite relevant—the Minister can in certain cases cause a local inquiry to be held. I think I am right in saying that an inquiry under Clause 6 would be paid for out of moneys voted by Parliament, as the Financial Memorandum says. I do not believe that the Clause contains an arrangement to put the cost on the ratepayers. On the other hand, if the Clause does that, what are the inquiries under Part I which are to be paid for out of moneys voted by Parliament?
  208
  It cannot be that the Financial Memorandum is telling us an untruth; there must be, therefore, some inquiries under that Part of the Bill which are paid for out of moneys voted by Parliament. Why, then, is not this"inquiry to be paid for out of moneys voted by Parliament? It may be that we shall be told that they will be in the first place but that the moneys will then be recovered from the ratepayers. If that is what is meant, it was rather sharp practice to use those words in the Financial Memorandum. We require an explanation from the Government, first, on the major point of morals—why on earth should local authorities have to pay for something which they cannot control, which they never asked for and which they do not want, and, secondly, on the secondary but still important point—what, exactly, is the meaning of the phrase I have quoted from the Financial Memorandum, and why does it not apply to these inquiries?
  Mr. Corfield: I hope that I shall be able to help the Committee on the Amendment. It may be helpful if I answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) first. The reason for the insertion of this provision referring to these expenses is that it has been taken from similar provisions of the London Government Act, 1939, where the same terms are applied and where the expenses are recoverable quite irrespective of whether the initiative comes from the Home Secretary or the borough concerned.
  The same principle was also applied—using the word "principle" rather broadly—in the Local Government Act, 1958. I am sure that the Committee will appreciate that under the local government reorganisation which is going on under that Act there is likely to be a number of cases where the local people can equally say that this is not something which they have wished for, but that it has in a sense been thrust upon them.
  The provisions of Section 290 of the Local Government Act, 1933, are somewhat different. The Government are quite willing to meet the hon. Member by substituting the terms and principles of that Section for these provisions.

  209
  Perhaps it would simplify matters if I read the relevant subsection. It says:
  "Where a department cause any such inquiry to be held, the costs incurred by them in relation to that inquiry (including such reasonable sum not exceeding five guineas a day as they may determine for the services of any officer engaged in the inquiry) shall be paid by such local authority or party to the inquiry as the department' may direct, and the department may certify the amount of the costs so incurred …"
  In that Section there is a discretionary power on the part of the Minister concerned. Here the power is mandatory, and the Government are willing to meet the hon. Member by agreeing, on Report or at a later stage, to incorporate the provisions of Section 290 (4) in place of these mandatory provisions.
  It might also be helpful to the Committee if I reminded it that, as we see it at the moment, the inquiries that will be held will be almost exclusively under the Home Office rather than under my right hon. Friend's Department. In practice, what happens is that the Home Office exercises the provisions of Section 290 in its favour. In the case of my own Department, largely because we have our own staff of inspectors and do not therefore incur the same outside expenses, we do not normally make charges. But if the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing the Amendment, we will certainly take that step towards him, which I hope he will consider as a concession.
  Mr. Elwyn Jones: Although this gesture is a crumb of comfort and is better than nothing, surely it is still not enough. After all, an inquiry cannot be held until the Secretary of State orders it. He will not order it unless he deems it expedient to do so. We can never be in the presence of a frivolous inquiry because the Minister, or the Secretary of State, will have given prior consideration to whether there should be an inquiry at all. It would seem, to me at any rate, that, having determined that preliminary matter, to exclude all unjustifiable or frivolous inquiries, it would seem proper in the circumstances thereafter—particularly in the circumstances of the coming into existence of this machinery—that the charge should be one upon the Exchequer and not on a local authority.
  Mr. M. Stewart: Before my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) rises to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, may I get the matter clear? If I follow the Parliamentary Secretary rightly, he is prepared to alter the Bill so that the Home Office, which would take most of these inquiries, would have a discretion whether to pay itself or make the local authority pay.
  Mr. Corfield: It would apply to both Ministries.
  Mr. Stewart: Either the Ministry of the hon. Gentleman or the Home Office, whichever was concerned, would have the discretion either to pay itself or make the local authority pay.
  Mr. Corfield: And pay in whole or in part.
  Mr. Stewart: Yes, or to divide it.
  If I understood the hon. Gentleman rightly, he said it would concern the Home Office more frequently than his Department—which made it easier for him to make these concessions cheerfully. He added that the Home Office, unfortunately, had a reputation of usually using its discretion in its own favour—
  Mr. Corfield: It was fair enough to warn them.
  Mr. Stewart: —but I hope that in future the Home Office will take the hint and not be inflexibly ungenerous.
  This is water in a thirsty land, and it indicates that, like the unfortunate widow, we ought always to pray and not to faint and that in the end we get something.
  I sympathise with what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones), but I feel that we ought to celebrate the first occasion on which we have had a clear undertaking to alter the Bill, though only in a minor respect. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will consider it right to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. A. Evans: I have listened to what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, and I am sure he gained a lot of satisfaction from being able to make that concession which we will accept,

  211
  although it represents only a small crumb of comfort. I fear that it may have been made in order to cover up some other wickedness on the part of the Department.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. M. Stewart: I beg to move, in page 2, line 44, to leave out "1964" and to insert "1967".
  This is obviously an Amendment of major importance. It reflects one's general judgment on the contents of the Bill, although I hope in developing my argument to show that I am not merely going to repeat arguments with which the Committee is familiar from earlier debates about the merits of the Bill as a whole, but to show that there are also quite compelling reasons why, even if one wanted this Bill to become law at all, this date ought to be altered.
  I have chosen the date 1967 for the reason that I feel 1964 is too early and that the whole rhythm of local government in Greater London moves in three-year cycles. If I proposed 1965 or 1966 it might be objected that that could not be conveniently fitted into the present rhythm of local government elections. If, however, the Government do not feel that there is any substance in that point and are prepared to say that they think three years ahead is too much but they would be willing to consider 1966 or 1965, I would very willingly accept that.
  Broadly speaking, I think 1964 is too early; the date ought at any rate to be twelve months later than that, 1965. I put in 1967 in case it might be objected that 1965 or 1966 was not a convenient year in view of the general pattern of local government elections in Greater London. I hope my Amendment will not be objected to merely because it says 1967 rather than 1966 or 1965. We would be prepared to settle for any of those dates.
  One of the main reasons for wanting a postponement is that we consider that this plan ought not to come fully into operation until the electors as a whole have had an opportunity to pronounce on it at a Parliamentary General Election. Not only does this Bill affect a very large number of people—8 million,
  212
  about a sixth of our whole population—but, as has been pointed out elsewhere and as we have discovered in the course of our debates today, this Bill embodies certain general principles and attitudes about local government which the Government are likely to apply in other parts of the country.
  It is also introducing, by the size of the authority it creates, a new kind of government, something which is too large to be local government as we know it but too small to be regional government. If we once start doing that with the general pattern of local government in the country, it is something which concerns everyone whether they live in Greater London or not. It would be reasonable before making a change of this magnitude to give the electorate as a whole an opportunity to pronounce on it.
  If, of course, the Minister is in a position to give us an undertaking that there will be a General Election before this Bill even becomes law, it will hardly be necessary for me to proceed with the Amendment, although I am not unreasonable and I do not positively demand an assurance of that kind. I prefer to deal with the matter in the normal Parliamentary way of trying to amend the Bill in such a way that it does not come into operation until the electorate as a whole has had an opportunity to pronounce upon it.
  There are several reasons why I think it sound to demand that. It has often been stated, and truly stated, that there is no mandate for a Bill of this kind. Ministers and hon. Members opposite who know the London and Greater London constituencies must be perfectly well aware that if they had made it known to electors in Greater London constituencies at the last election that they proposed to do this kind of thing, the result in a number of constituencies concerned would have been very different from what it was.
  We cannot argue against all the legislation a Government introduces that it has no mandate for it, because things often happen in the lifetime of a Government which cannot be foreseen. A Government which regarded itself as always tied to a mandate could not govern, but nothing happened between 1958 and now which obliged the Government to say that it is imperative to carry

  213
  out a major reorganisation of Greater London government before the next General Election. Nobody could pretend that.
  9.45 p.m.
  It is, I think, sound democratic doctrine that the Government should not proceed with major Measures for which they have no mandate unless they can show that it is necessary for the good government of the country to proceed with them with that degree of haste. That cannot be demonstrated of this Bill. The whole of these proceedings could be pushed 12 months into the future, and nobody could say that good administration would suffer as a result; but it would give an opportunity for the electorate to pronounce on them. That is one reason why we should await the judgment of the people: there has been no mandate for the Bill.
  Secondly, it cannot be said that the Bill has by now the weight and moral authority of a Royal Commission behind it. It could probably be demonstrated that at some time during the 1959 election some more or less leading figure in the Conservative Party mumbled something or other about local government reform in general, and that, building on that, they appointed a Royal Commission to deal with Greater the findings of the Royal Commission. London, and that the Bill is based on But as the Minister must know, the Bill has by now departed in so many respects from the recommendations of the Royal Commission that the Government cannot claim the moral authority, if there were any, of that Commission behind it.
  That is particularly true of the Clause and Schedule which we are to discuss in Committee of the whole House, and which determine the size and boundaries of the London boroughs, because the Government made a major change in the Royal Commission's recommendations about the size that the boroughs should be. The Royal Commission wanted the boroughs if possible to be round about 200,000, and not more than that. The Government proceeded on the principle that if possible they should always be more than 200,000, and many of them are much bigger than that. That is purely the Government's judgment. It has not the authority of the Royal Commission behind it. It
  214
  has not a mandate of the people behind it.
  Thirdly, it cannot be claimed that there is any consensus of well-informed opinion behind these proposals. Indeed, the remarkable thing about the whole Bill, and particularly about the proposals for the size and boundaries of the boroughs, is that it has not the support either of the democratic many or of the few elite in each branch with which 'the Bill deals. As we know, group after group of people with expert knowledge have pronounced against the Bill. There is a passage in the Press this morning giving the opinion of the medical profession about the proposals to break up the county health service. It is true that the memorandum suggests 'that 'this could be remedied by the use of administrative powers under Clause 46 (1). I am rather doubtful whether that is correct. I would always defer to the opinion of a group of doctors on a medical matter, but when it is a matter of what the Minister can and cannot do under a Clause in a Bill, I do not see why I should defer to the opinion of doctors more than to the opinion of anyone else. Their case against the termination of the service is serious.
  It is significant that for each department of knowledge with which the Bill deals the group of people whom I call, without any disrespect, the elite—that is to say, people who have much more knowledge than the average person can possibly have of that particular service—have pronounced against it. These include doctors and architects. I had the good fortune to hear the Minister address the Royal Institution of British Architects earlier this month. What amused me was that the architects kept assuring him that they were in favour of the Bill in principle. If I had been in charge of a Bill and had been assured of support in tones as chilling as that of the meeting, I should have been alarmed. The Minister must have come away from 'the meeting feeling, "If this is support for the Bill, what will opposition be like?" Doctors, architects, magistrates, teachers, every group of people—
  Mr. Ellis Smith: The élite.
  Mr. M. Stewart: I hope that word will not be misunderstood, but I think it is true that on any subject one likes

  215
  to mention it is important to get the views of two groups of people. When discussing health, it is important to know what the ordinary citizen thinks. It is also important to know what the doctors think. It is a mistake to make up one's mind on policy without consulting both those views. In a really healthy society, all of us would belong to the elite on one subject and be some of the common men on something else. I would never reject a Bill simply on the ground that the people with expert knowledge were opposed to it; but when a Bill is both unpopular with people in general and every group of experts dislikes it in particular it is not unreasonable to think that there might be something wrong with the Bill and it ought to be subjected to a General Election before it becomes law.
  Another reason for doing that is that there is not in the Bill any procedure which gives the inhabitants of Greater London the kind of rights that are to be given in local government reorganisation to people in any other part of the country. The procedure is different there. Under the 1958 Act draft recommendations will be made by the Commission. All the parties concerned will have a chance of looking at the draft recommendations, making their own judgments on them, and presenting them to an inquiry. Only then will final recommendations be made. Then the Ministers, on the basis of that, will make orders and the House of Commons will decide what to do about the orders. At no time did Londoners have presented to them a draft of the Bill so that they could go through the formal process of making objections. It is true that they could give evidence to the Royal Commission, but when the Royal Commission was sitting no proposals had been made. That was a semi-academic inquiry. Everybody came forward and expressed his opinions about what London government ought to be like. When the Royal Commission had finished its job and made its own recommendations, those recommendations were not subject, as recommendations affecting provincial areas are, to the process of official public scrutiny and inquiry. This has not prevented Londoners of their own motion holding their meetings, expressing their opinions, and passing their judgments on
  216
  what the Royal Commission and the later Government White Paper proposed. But they have never been guaranteed any proper statutory right of having the first recommendations put before them and made the subject of objection and inquiry. They have been treated worse in this respect than the people of any other part of the Kingdom.
  My fifth reason for saying that this ought to be submitted to the test of a Parliamentary General Election before it comes into force is the clear and recent evidence we have of popular opposition to the Bill. I made my point earlier about the way in which one can, and should try to, collect on any major measure the opinion both of the experts and of people in general. Fortunately we have quite recent evidence as to what the opinion of people in general is about the Bill. It was only a few months after the White Paper was produced that we bad the borough council elections in London. A major issue in some of the boroughs was, "What do you think ought to be done about London education?" When those election campaigns began, the plan then was to hack the L.C.C. area completely out.
  As the elections proceeded and, possibly, as reports of what was happening arrived at the Tory Central Office, the Government introduced a compromise plan which saved about two-thirds of the L.C.C. area. Even this, alas, did not serve to preserve the Tory control of Wandsworth from being destroyed at the election. The electors showed clearly enough what they thought of the proposal. So we had the still further modification of the education proposals, which now appears in the Bill.
  More recently, in December, the Bill was read a second time. Just about that time there were two significant by-elections, one for the London County Council and one for the Middlesex County Council. One of those was in the Central Wandsworth Division, in London, a seat previously held by the Labour councillor with a majority of about 500. It is now held by a Labour councillor with a majority of three times that figure—and that was at a by-election in which the Bill under discussion was clearly in issue.
  In the West Acton Division, in Middlesex, there was a by-election in

  217
  a seat which had been held by the Conservative Party with a majority of about 300. It is now represented by a Labour councillor with a majority of over 1.000. There again was an election in which the Bill was a clear issue. The facts have shown themselves all along the line. I see the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge) shaking his head, but I do not think that he took part in the by-election in West Acton.
  Mr. E. Partridge: I was close to it.
  Mr. Stewart: He will know, then, that the Conservative candidate was thrown very much further down the voting list on that occasion. I read the Labour candidate's address and I can assure hon. Members that it made the Bill a clear issue. Here are two recent county council by-elections at which this issue was before the electorate. They returned a verdict both impressive and serious and one to which the Government should pay attention.
  I ask the Minister, therefore, to consider whether it is a dignified or democratic procedure to go ahead with a Bill against which there is such a weight of feeling by expert evidence? Or does he feel that if the Bill had to run the gauntlet of a General Election it would not survive? If he really feels that, he surely should not press forward with the Measure. A major change like this ought only to be made if one is reasonably satisfied that one has a solid weight of opinion behind it and that it is not likely to be speedily overthrown by a coming election. It is unwise morally and ministerially to proceed with a Bill which one feels cannot survive an elec-
  tion which, in any case, cannot be long delayed.
  We shall not lose all that much, from anyone's point of view, by postponing the operation of the Bill for twelve months. After all, a great change is involved. There can be no overwhelming reason for saying that it must take place at this juncture, rather than twelve or eighteen months later. If it ran the gauntlet of a General Election and survived the Government would then be in a strong position to say, as they cannot say now, that it is a change which Londoners desire.
  To discover whether Londoners or people outside London desire the Bill the Government should be prepared—and the Measure does not have the authority of a Royal Commission behind it, has no signs of popular support and is condemned by expert opinion—to say that they will wait until, in the normal democratic process, Londoners and others have had an opportunity to pronounce upon it. They are not prepared to do that and it speaks ill for the confidence the Government have in the soundness and morality of their own Measure.
  It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report Progress.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put:—
  That the Proceedings on the London Government Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) for one hour after Ten o'clock.—[Sir K. Joseph.]
  The House divided:Ayes 221, Noes 173.

  Division No. 28.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Box, Donald

  Chataway, Christopher

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Awdry, Danlel (Chippenham)

  Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Balniel, John

  Braine, Bernard

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Barter, John

  Brewis, John

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, w.)

  Batsford, Brian

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Cooke, Robert

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Buck, Antony

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Bullard, Denys

  Corfield, F. V.

  Bidgood, John C.

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Coulson, Michael

  Biffen, John

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Bossom, Hon. Olive

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Crowder, F. P.

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Curran, Charles

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Rawlinson, Sir Peter

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Dance, James

  James, David

  Rees, Hugh

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Johnson, Eric (Buckley)

  Renton, Rt. Hon. David

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Doughty, Charles

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S)

  Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey

  Drayson, G. B.

  Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Duncan, Sir James

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Eden, John

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Eillot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Kltson, Timothy

  Roots, William

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

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Leavey, J. A.

  Russell, Ronald

  Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  St. Clair, M.

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Finlay, Graeme

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Seymour, Leslie

  Fisher, Nigel

  Longbottom, Charles

  Sharpies, Richard

  Fletcher-Cooks, Charles

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Shaw, M.

  Foster, John

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Shepherd, William

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

  MacArthur, Ian

  Skeet, T. H. H

  Gammans, Lady

  McLaren, Martin

  Smith, Dudley (Br'ntfd & Chiswick)

  Gardner, Edward

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Giimour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Maclean, Sir Fltzroy (Bute&N. Ayrs)

  Stodart, J. A.

  Glover, Sir Douglas

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

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  MacLeod, John (Ross St Cromarty)

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Goodhart, Philip

  Macpherson, Rt.Hn. Niall (Dumfries)

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maginnis, John E.

  Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

  Gough, Frederick

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Teeling, Sir William

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Marten, Neil

  Temple, John M.

  Green, Alan

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Mawby, Ray

  Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Gurden, Harold

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

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Mills, Stratton

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Turner, Colin

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Morgan. William

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Hastings, Stephen

  Morrison, John

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Hay, John

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Neave, Airey

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Hendry, Forbes

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell

  Hlley, Joseph

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Walder, David

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

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Walker, Peter

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

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

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Wall, Patrick

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Partridge, E.

  Webster, David

  Holland, Philip

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Hollingworth, John

  Percival, Ian

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Hopkins, Alan

  Pitman, Sir James

  Wise, A. R.

  Hornby, R. P.

  Pott, Percivall

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

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

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Proud toot, Wilfred

  Woollam, John

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Pym, Francis

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr, Peel and Mr. Ian Fraser.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Carmichael, Neil

  Evans, Albert

  Ainsley, William

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Fernyhough, E.

  Albu, Austen

  Cliffe, Michael

  Fitch, Alan

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Collick, Percy

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)

  Crosland, Anthony

  Forman, J. C.

  Barnett, Guy

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Beaney, Alan

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Bence, Cyril

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Blackburn, F.

  Deer, George

  Grey, Charles

  Blyton, William

  Delargy, Hugh

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Boardman, H.

  Dempsey, James

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Diamond, John

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

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

  Dodds, Norman

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Driberg, Tom

  Hannan, William

  Bradley, Tom

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  Harper, Joseph

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce(Wood Green)

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Hilton, A. V.

  220

  221

  Holman, Percy

  Millan, Bruce

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Holt, Arthur

  Milne, Edward

  Small, William

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Moody, A. S.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Hunter, A. E.

  Morris, John

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Neal, Harold

  Steele, Thomas

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

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

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Stones, William

  Irving, Sydney (Dartforel)

  Oram, A. E.

  Swain, Thomas

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Oswald, Thomas

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Jeger, George

  Padley, W. E.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Parker, John

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

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Parkin, B. T.

  Thornton, Ernest

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Timmons, John

  Kelley, Richard

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Tomney, Frank

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Peart, Frederick

  Wainwright, Edwin

  King, Dr. Horace

  Pentland, Norman

  Warbey, William

  Lawson, George

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Weitzman, David

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Prentice, R. E.

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Price, J. T. (Westhougtiton)

  Whitlock, William

  Lipton, Marcus

  Probert, Arthur

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Loughlin, Charles

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Willey, Frederick

  Lubbock, Eric

  Redhead, E. C.

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  MacColl, James

  Reynolds, G W.

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  McInnes, James

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

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

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Rodgere, W. T. (Stockton)

  Woof, Robert

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

  Ross, William

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Manuel, Archie

  Short, Edward

  Mapp, Charles

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Marsh, Richard

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Mr. Charles A. Howell and

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Mr. McCann.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL
  Again considered in Committee.
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. Charles Doughty: I support the Amendment, but not entirely for the reasons which the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) gave. I do not believe that there is great force in the argument that this Bill or any Bill should be left until after a General Election because a General Election, of coarse, is decided not upon one subject but upon a variety. Although this Bill, among many other matters, will be mentioned during the election campaign, the decision cannot be said to be given upon the merits of demerits of one particular Bill.
  However, I read with some apprehension that it is proposed to hold elections of councillors for each London borough, that is, the new boroughs, in May, 1964. That is only one year from next May. When one looks at the Bill, one realises what has to be accomplished within that time in the House, let alone outside. There are 86 Clauses and 17 Schedules, and we are now on page 2 of the Bill. We have to consider it in detail. I sincerely hope that we shall consider it fully and not be unduly hurried in our
  222
  discussions because there are many matters which call for very careful consideration. When we have finished with the Bill, it must go to another place, and there are then other steps to be taken later in this place before we finally part with it.
  The House of Commons will have other things to do and other matters to consider between now and the end of the Session. We shall have before us a variety of matters, apart from the Finance Bill. This Bill cannot possibly become law until late in the autumn. Between then and May of the following year the whole of the reorganisation will have to take place. In many instances, the reorganisation will have to take place between parties who are not at all willing partners in the organisation or reorganisation. All that must be done—I am speaking now only of the administrative machinery—before any sort of election can take place.
  It is only fair that the various parties who will wish to support those standing for election as councillors should have time to organise or reorganise themselves in their new positions and to select the candidates who may, or may not, ultimately become councillors. How all that can be done in the few months available

  223
  passes my comprehension, particularly when I remember that it has to be done by voluntary organisations.
  In my view, this is speeding things up too much. I do not necessarily say that we should wait until 1967. I agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite who said that his mind was not fixed upon any particular year. It may be that one year is sufficient. However, I do believe that to try to get the Bill through, put the machinery into action and get the amalgamations carried out—unwilling amalgamations in many cases—and then have elections held within the very few months which will remain before May, 1964, is to show an undue haste. I do not approve of it being shown in this matter, and I therefore support the Amendment.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Elwyn Jones: It is most gratifying that there should be support for this Amendment from the benches opposite. We look forward with enthusiasm to the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) joining us in the Division Lobby in due course on this most worthy Amendment.
  The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) in introducing the Amendment was quite masterly and very impressive. He traversed the democratic principles which call for further time for consideration before this revolutionary change in the structure of the government of this great community comes into being. As he pointed out, as many as 8 million people are affected by the proposed Bill. When one contemplates that at the United Nations there are several sovereign Governments representing populations less than that, it is a measure of the far-reaching importance of this change which will alter the whole political structure of this vast community.
  The principle of the mandate is, I agree, highly arguable, but here at any rate is a clear case of a major change in Government structure being introduced by a Government which gave no breath or hint of it at the last General Election. Failure to accept this Amendment can, I think, reasonably be interpreted as fear of the people and of their judgment of this matter if it were referred to them.
  Reference has already been made to the mass of expert criticism of the con-
  224
  tents of the Bill. It is important to underline the massive and substantial departures in the Bill from the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I speak with some feeling on this matter, representing, as I do, the southern part of West Ham, a borough which is to lose its separate identity completely if this Measure goes through, contrary to the Royal Commission's recommendations. No such recommendation was made. That is an illustration of the way in which the Government have seen fit to play ducks and drakes with the Royal Commission's recommendations, and one cannot help having an uneasy suspicion that there are political motives behind some, at any rate, of the decisions the Government has taken, in order to ease the future of the Conservative Party.
  When faced with this kind of situation, the need for time to ponder and to review the matter further is abundantly evident. Shotgun marriages are suggested in the proposed reorganisation of the boroughs, and I should have thought that if a little more time were given voluntary associations, marriages of convenience rather than marriages by the Government's pistol, might still have been capable of being organised. It is another reason for time to ponder, time for further efforts to be made to achieve a reorganisation which has the full support of the people affected by it. We do not want democratic machinery set up at pistol point and at high speed in this way.
  It is not as if the government of this great community were grinding to a halt. On the contrary, it is, in most aspects, in good heart and in a good state of health, although clearly some changes would be justifiable. Accordingly, the need for a further pause is, as my hon. Friend indicated, desirable from the public point of view and necessary in the public interest. For these reasons, I support the Amendment with enthusiasm.
  Mr. Pavitt: The words of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) have been echoed in many parts of the Committee concerning the conduct of the Bill. The words "shotgun marriage "have been used by many hon. Members, but the essence of the phrase is that it implies undue haste. Because the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) would

  225
  give a little breathing time, I implore the Committee to accept it.
  If something is good, it is capable of standing the test of time. If the Bill is right, the Government need have no fear in accepting the Amendment and delaying the operation of the Bill until 1967 or, if they cannot meet us to that extent, a year earlier—at least, without this undue haste. The mark of a classic is that it stands the test of time. It is because this is a shocking pot-boiler that we feel that the Government will not accept our proposal.
  Those of us who are familiar with the work of our town halls are well aware of the time that must be taken in the localities to absorb all the vast changes caused by the Bill. The Minister came down earlier in the garb of an apostle in favour of bureaucracy and rather opposed to councillors, but he is only too well aware of the way that those conscientious people are extremely worried about how to cope with all the questions that arise as a result of the Bill. The timetable laid down by the Government places an almost impossible burden upon their shoulders. Therefore, for the sake of smooth working, apart from any question of principle, it is desirable that the Bill should be delayed to the extent suggested in the Amendment.
  Being interested particularly in health matters, I should like to follow a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham. When 2,300 general practitioners, who, I assure the Committee, are not necessarily Socialists and do not often support us in the ballot box, come forward with such profound argument about why the Bill will be injurious to the Health Service, the Committee must pay attention. This is an argument against the Bill as a whole. If the arguments of these people carry any weight, there should at least be sufficient time for these people, who often have responsibility for decisions of life and death, to be carried with it rather than against it. This would take time, which is what the Amendment would allow.
  The general practitioners raised particularly the question of midwifery service. The statement issued by the local medical committee of the County of London pointed out the present situation that if a midwife working in
  226
  one borough is taken ill, another midwife can be sent from another borough. It asked whether independent boroughs would be as quick to do the same and what would happen to a woman in labour.
  When discussing this kind of thing I have to be careful not to trespass on the territory of "That Was The Week That Was", because one can imagine bureaucratic telephones ringing and anxious people trying to sort out this tricky problem at ground-floor level. The doctors, however, think not in those terms, but in the serious terms of how to cope with obstetrics when resources are divided in the way that the Bill divides them. If the Bill becomes law, the doctors and the midwifery service will need time to make the necessary arrangements so that the service is maintained and, if possible, improved. This cannot be done in a short time.
  It is a complicated service involving the relationship between the general practitioners and the midwives and the whole of the social services, linked with the relationship between local services and the hospital services, the "flying squad". All these things we are talking about are matters of life and death affecting infant mortality and death in childbirth. Yet, for the sake of what seems to be a doctrinaire approach, we are hurrying the Bill through without giving the medical profession time to adjust itself to make the necessary arrangements so that the services may be continued satisfactorily.
  I do not know what consultation the Minister has had with the Minister of Health on this matter, but he knows that the Minister promised that after the 10-year plan for hospital building there should be a planned local medical service, and one assumes that this planning will cover not only local health authorities' services but also the medical services at present operated by local medical committees for the local areas. What kind of planning is this, with one Minister making one kind of planning and another Minister making planning of another kind? What kind of co-ordination is it?
  Whatever proposals go through, would not the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), by giving more time, help in the organisation of the administration of

  227
  local government medical services? Would not that give us enough time to see whether all these things fit in together, so that they may be co-ordinated, and so that the planning which is going on in one Department and the planning which is going on in another can be coordinated? The fault in the planning of this Government is that they do things piecemeal, unrelated to one another, although they have a bearing on one another and effect one another.
  There is the question of organising the changeover in education. Again, more time for that would be most helpful. The Bill provides elsewhere that the essential services of the London County Council in education shall remain under a single education authority. The Conservative and Labour members of Middlesex County Council have unitedly requested a similar kind of thing. We do not know the merit of this, but if we rush this Bill through, and lose this extra period of time, there is no question that the genuine fears of both the Conservative and Labour councillors of Middlesex about education will not be alleviated.
  The same argument for more time applies to other provisions of the Bill, for instance, those related to highways and traffic, and the weird arrangement which seems to exist whereby the Minister of Transport has certain powers and the Greater London Council has others. It would seem that, if all these things are to be adjusted satisfactorily, there must be more time to work out all the practical details. If the Bill goes through under the present timetable there will not be adequate time.
  I should like to raise once again the consideration that the speedy passing of the Bill at this time affects the youth employment services. Under the Bill it is possible, if a borough does not choose to take up these matters for the responsibility to rest with the Minister of
  228
  Labour, but this is at a time when more and more school leavers are finding themselves without jobs and when unemployment is an acute problem. To have these services thrown into the melt-ingpot at this period would surely be a disaster for the youngsters now starting on their careers. Again, we think there must be sufficient time for the adjustment of all these services, and my hon. Friend's Amendment, for these reasons, has considerable merit.
  As has been pointed out by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones), we are dealing with an area with a population equivalent to that of some of the countries which have seats in the United Nations. We are affecting a wide range of services over a very large geographical area. We are trying to make Uxbridge marry Southend to make a viable unit.
  Mr. Pargiter: Uxbridge is supposed to marry Southall, not Southend.
  Mr. Pavitt: I was not only thinking of the marriage of Southall and Uxbridge but also of the Greater London Council, with Uxbridge at one end Southend at the other.
  Mr. H. P. G. Channon: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but Southend is not included in the provisions of the Bill.
  Mr. Mellish: It will not be long before it is.
  Mr. Pavitt: What the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) says is true, but Hornchurch is included and we are moving further and further along the River Thames.
  This Amendment should receive the support not only of my right hon. and hon. Friends but also of hon. Members opposite who, while agreeing with the principle of the Bill, could give us a little more time to do the job satisfactorily and well.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Weitzman: I hope that the Minister will pay attention to the powerful arguments put forward for the Amendment not only from this side of the Committee—which will, of course, be suspect by him—but also by the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty). The hon. and learned Gentleman's case was very powerful apart from the questions raised by my hon. Friends.
  We are on the first day of the Committee stage and we have discussed one or two important but short Amendments. Unless the Government adopt their usual method of dealing with important Bills, the Guillotine, it will be a very considerable 'time before the Bill reaches the Statute Book. As has been said more than once, it affects 8 million people in the most important centre of the United Kingdom. Many interests are involved. If the Government are to play the game they must give the Committee and the House itself ample time to consider the Bill and everything it involves.
  Now, at the end of January, it is difficult to contemplate the Bill, if full justice is to be paid to its consideration, reaching the Statute Book for a considerable time. What does that mean? This provision we are discussing, for instance, requires the election of councillors under arrangements to be made by incorporation order on a day in May, 1964. How much time will that give? I have the honour to represent what used to be called the "model borough" of Stoke Newington—a very small borough—and part of the Borough of Hackney. Under the Bill, Stoke Newington, Hackney and Shoreditch are to be united in one of these wonderful boroughs the Government contemplate.
  But if that is to be done, surely the Minister recognises that after the Bill becomes law a tremendous amount of time will be required administratively before the election of the -new councils can be arranged. That point was not made on this side of the Committee. It was made by the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East. Is not that an absolutely sound argument? Even though he has voluminous notes I hope that the Minister will pay due attention to that argument. If he agrees that it is a sound one, how can he possibly say
  230
  that it would be fair to contemplate the election of borough councillors as early as May, 1964?
  That is apart from other arguments—and there are many other sound arguments—in support of. the Amendment. The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East said that he did not quite agree with the argument about the necessity for a General Election to deal with this matter, because General Elections deal with many matters. That is true, but there is no reason why we should not put before the electorate the consideration of this Measure, as proposed by the Government. in other words, a General Election would give the London electorate an opportunity of considering the changes contemplated by the Bill.
  In all justice and fairness, when we contemplate changes of this enormous character is it not fair that the people should judge? If we were talking about an agreed Measure, or a Measure which involved little opposition, one might be able to understand the argument for getting on with the job, but even the Minister must recognise the tremendous volume of opposition which exists to many parts of the Bill—indeed, to the whole principle contained in it. Members of the medical profession, architects, surveyors, and almost every borough affected by the Bill are protesting against these changes.
  When the Government are foisting—and I use the word advisedly—a Measure of this kind upon people and boroughs who are not only reluctant to accept it but entirely oppose it, is if not right to hesitate a good deal, and take the opinions of the people concerned—an electorate comprising 8 million people? They should be given the opportunity of considering whether these changes should be made. How can that possibly be done when we have a Measure of this kind, one of whose provisions state that borough councillors shall be elected on some day in May, 1964?
  There is the case. It is as simple as that. It does not warrant a lot of argument. Take the pros on one side and the cons on the other. Let the Government act fairly and justly in this matter. If they do, how can they possibly avoid accepting the Amendment and allowing

  231
  further time, recognising how unfair and unjust it would be to stick to their provision for an election in May, 1964?
  Mr. Richard Marsh: All of us are hoping that the Government will genuinely have second thoughts about the Amendment. It seems extraordinary that they should feel so concerned to rush the Measure through, to an extent which worries many of their own supporters as well as hon. Members on this side of the Committee. There is no hurry for this. London has been here for a long time, now.
  Arguments justifying some changes can be put up, although they are arguments which we do not accept, but it is difficult to suggest that the position London has become so catastrophic and incapable of administration that the whole of this massive Bill has to be whipped through Parliament in just over twelve months. The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) made a valid point. He is not a revolutionary Member. He normally supports the Government in almost anything they do. But he felt constrained to complain bitterly about the Bill and we support him in those complaints.
  There are a number of things which could be said about the present date of operations. The hon. and learned Gentleman said he did not think that the Government had to have a mandate for everything that they did, and that is perfectly true. I do not believe in mandated Members. A Government are elected to represent people and it is the job of that Government to govern while they have the support of the electorate. I am not here making a party point. I would never dream of doing so in the circumstances. But I do not think that any hon. Member would claim that the Government at this time have the support of the majority of the population.
  Mr. A. R. Wise rose—
  Mr. Marsh: I do not know whether the hon. Member is about to say that he believes that the Government have.
  Mr. Wise: I think that the party on this side of the Committee can claim to represent a larger proportion of the electorate than hon. Members opposite.
  Mr. Marsh: That is a view which the hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to hold. The day that the Labour Party loses a seat with a majority of 8,000 we shall need rather more backing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Fourteen thousand."] Yes but that seat was lost in an extraordinary fashion.
  The Government would have to think carefully and produce some evidence before claiming that they represent the majority of the population. But I do not wish to make a party point out of this. I merely state it as a fact. At the moment all the Gallup polls show that the Labour Party has a lead of something like ½ points over the Conservative Party. That does not mean that that will always be the position. But is is becoming increasingly difficult to believe that anything this Government may do in the foreseeable future can do other than add to that lead.
  If the Government do not have the support of the electorate, they have no right to push through highly contentious legislation for which they have no sort of mandate, and clearly they could not obtain one at the present time. This is a serious constitutional point. I do not think that a Government with a majority and the support of the nation necessarily have to say that unless a Bill which they are putting before Parliament was in their last General Election manifesto, it cannot be put through. That would reduce us to being governed by mandated delegates. But I do not believe that a Government have the right to force through legislation for which there is virtually no support whatsoever and which they can push through only by the aid of a majority which does not exist in terms of the confidence of the British people. Indeed, the Government have not the confidence of some of the hon. Members opposite.
  There is no secret about the fact that there is bound to be a General Election within the next eighteen months. Hon. Members opposite have made their points in the past against us and we have made our points against the party opposite. But it is generally accepted that the present Government are fast taking on the appearance of a national disaster and no

  233
  Government can continue on that course for very long. So there must be a General Election by October of next year at the very latest.
  If the Government win that General Election, when this matter has been before the electorate, we shall continue to oppose it because we feel strongly about this matter. But no one could challenge the constitutional right of the Government in those circumstances to use their majority to carry the Bill through. To do that and to have the support of the people, and allow the people to have some say in the matter, the Government have only to put off the matter for twelve months at the most. I do not believe that a case can be made that there is such urgency about the matter that the 8½ million people, one-fifth of the total population of the country, cannot be given time in which to express their point of view on an issue on which clearly a large number feel very strongly.
  One of the things which has surprised all of us is the intensity with which people feel on the issue of the Bill. That is a good thing. One of the great problems of the modern urban community is the difficulty of obtaining any identification between the individual and the area in which he lives. The sense of community is very difficult to maintain in a large area. But one of the things which has amazed me is the extent to which this feeling clearly exists in London, the biggest Metropolis in the world.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee probably received, as I did last week, a letter from a group of wards in North Epsom and Ewell—on the Southern Railway line—and at the top of it was a list of the local bodies who were appealing to Conservative Members, Socialist Members and the Liberal Member to try to prevent the Bill from being passed because they felt strongly about it. There was the Epsom and Ewell Conservative Association, the Epsom Labour Party, the Epsom Trades Council, the Epsom Churches organisation and the Chamber of Commerce. All these people feel strongly about what is proposed in the Bill affecting their community—and it is a good thing that they should feel strongly about it.
  10.45 p.m.
  Why should they be denied the right of expressing a point of view about it?
  234
  Have we reached the stage at which the gentleman in Whitehall has the right to decide the future of 9 million people and it is regarded as impertinence if they ask for twelve months in which to give a decision on it? Is it unreasonable that they should ask at least to be permitted to express their point of view? If the Government retain their majority after the next election they are entitled to ignore that point of view, but are not these people entitled to express a point of view?
  The right hon. Gentleman set up a Commission, and that is his justification for much of the action which he undertakes. But he has ignored many of the Commission's recommendations and has changed others where they were inconvenient. In a democracy, he cannot deal with the destinies of 9 million people by a Commission, particularly when it is clear that the Government do not represent the people or a majority of them.
  The Government of the day introduced a Bill in 1884 to extend at that time the city boundaries and to provide for what eventually became the basis of the London County Council as we know it. It was not until 1894 that the boroughs began to be created—ten years later. Since that time there have been seventy years of evolution. One can have different points of view about the form which the L.C.C. should take. That is legitimate. It is a matter of opinion. But I do not think that anyone on either side of the Committee would seriously suggest that the L.C.C. can be regarded as bad local government at present. It can fairly be argued that changes should be made in it, but by and large it is accepted as one of the greatest municipal authorities in the world. It has taken seventy years to evolve.
  Yet the Government, without discussing the matter in a General Election, produce a Bill which creates enormous opposition throughout the area concerned, causes dismay and heartache among a large number of their own supporters and add, "To suggest waiting until after the next General Election so that the electors may express their point of view is unreasonable and should not be accepted."
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will regard this as a reasonable request

  235
  for the Opposition to make. This is a big and fundamental issue. If the Government make a mistake in the Bill, it will cause a great deal of difficulty to one-fifth of the population of this country. The Government obviously believe that they are right, but to rush a Bill of this type after this length of time can be justified on one ground only. That was contained in the Commission's Report, where it said that the size of London had made it a major political prize. Do not let us be pious about this. We are all politicians in this Chamber and obviously we are interested in prizes for our own party. The Government are setting out to reorganise the London County Council area against the wishes of the people concerned, without permitting them the right to express their opinion in a General Election, and doing it so quickly that many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee feel that irreparable damage could be done to services which are among the finest in the world.
  To do all that for purely party political gain because the Government feel they have lost the next General Election and will not have the opportunity to do this after would be a despicable action and one which I feel sure the right hon. Gentleman, having heard the convincing arguments advanced by my hon. Friends, would not wish to be a party to. I hope that he will immediately rise and apologise for not having made the Amendment in the first place.
  Mr. B. T. Parkin: I, too, hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment, although I have not any great expectations that he will. However, I hope that in his own defence he will give the same sort of assurance that he has given from time to time today, namely that he will look at the arguments carefully before Report, which it seems will not be for a considerable time.
  The Minister will recollect certain difficulties in getting a very nefarious Act called the Rent Act through the House of Commons. That was a situation where the Government had made a decision and told their supporters that it needed great courage, would result in short-term political unpopularity, and could succeed only if it was pushed through quickly and forcefully. Many
  236
  of the Minister's supporters at the time pleaded for delay in one or two little matters. The Opposition certainly pleaded for delay. The answer was always, "No". In the end the Minister had to produce a pitifully inadequate little amending Act where small justice was done in a limited way to a few but many who in the meantime had had to make their own arrangements were denied even the benefits of the amending Act.
  Even if the Minister and the Government are right in their courage and determination to bring about this massive and important change, it is less than likely that they will be right on every point. It is less than likely that they will see now exactly and that their advisers can see exactly how the immense detailed changes in administration of the different welfare services will work out in different boroughs or areas. I beg the Minister to try to find a way of leaving a door open for reconsideration of some of these vitally important human matters which have already been referred to.
  One cannot overstress the difference between one area and another in its capacity to take over such subjects as child care from the London County Council. One cannot help thinking about the lack of experience, the difficulty of finding trained and experienced personnel, and the immense social damage which may result. The Minister does not need me to remind him at this hour of the night of the statistical facts of the case in my constituency, of the areas where in certain parts there have been twenty times the national average of children taken away from the care of their families and placed in the care of local authorities. He does not need to be told the statistics about fatherless children in an area like mine. He must know that, wealthy, successful and honourable as the City of Westminster is, it cannot take over these orphans of Paddington, run the necessary organisation and understand exactly just what these and similar community problems are unless there is a reasonable period for recruitment.
  It is very important that we should retain the best talents available in these places. At present they are tending to scuttle away and look for their own interests—and who can blame them? They are bound to be thinking that, with so much uncertainty, they cannot

  237
  be sure that their parts will succeed. Let it be proved to them by a detailed working out and assessment of the staff available, and the qualities of that staff, that it can succeed. Let them see the blue prints for their areas.
  When talking of staff I am not thinking so much about the great organising figures, but those who are at the very root of the matter; the welfare officers and those who visit homes. They are the most important first contacts. They must be told something about their communities and the future of them. This is most important, especially when one remembers that different parts of London differ from one another in their impact an these different social problems.
  We had an interesting example in this connection over the Housing Act. This is not the time to criticise the working of such Measures, but I would like to quote some facts about two boroughs. In one case the borough, with a Conservative majority, refused even to accept the recommendation that it should call a special meeting of its establishment committee to look for new staff and to implement the Act. Another borough, also with a Conservative majority, was on the ball and was immediately recruiting new staff. It so happens that those two boroughs will be amalgamated under the Bill. Someone will have some headaches.
  I hope that there will be an improvement in the good will and intention towards the Bill, but that cannot happen unless time is allowed for careful blueprint preparation. This good will cannot exist unless there is a prepared assessment of the number and quality of the junior staff required and an assessment of whether that staff will be available. Can the Minister tell us anything about preparations of this kind? Surely it is a little grotesque of him to expect this sort of thing to take shape within about twelve months of the Bill becoming law?
  I urge the right hon. Gentleman to consult his Service colleagues. Let him find out from the Air Ministry, for example, at what date it was necessary to begin to recruit intelligence officers so that they might be trained and fully equated with what they had to do in time for one of the major invasions. Let him
  238
  inquire how many times the number of such officers had to be reconsidered and how it was necessary to allow for wastage, inefficiency, fresh selection, and so on. There is not a Ministry in Whitehall, except the right hon. Gentleman's, which would be prepared to tackle such a gigantic task at such short notice, it is almost as though the Ministry is determined to demonstrate its own cruelty in thrusting this knife into the welfare services which are so efficiently run by the L.C.C.
  Is the Ministry determined to prove that it can be done? It seemed determined to push the Rent Act through, to demonstrate that it did not mind if a few fell by the wayside and if minor injustices occurred. Only pressure from the Government's supporters made it bring in a pitiful Amending Act which had to be rushed through its Committee stage upstairs. We were told, in effect, "If you do not take it as it is people will suffer." Many of them did suffer, including the loss of their homes in circumstances which could never be put right. Of course, the Minister knows that there is force in these arguments. He is the sort of person—
  It being Eleven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  BRITISH MUSEUM [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to alter the composition of the Trustees of the British Museum, to provide for the separation from the British Museum of the British Museum (Natural History), to make new provision with respect to the regulation of the two Museums and their collections, in place of that made by the British Museum Act 1753 and enactments amending or supplementing that Act, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) any increase in expenditure out of moneys provided by Parliament which is attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session enabling objects comprised in the collections of the British Museum or the British Museum (Natural History) to be kept in premises additional to those in which they were required to be kept immediately before the commencement of the Act;

  239

  (b) the payment into the Exchequer to the net proceeds of any sale or other disposition of the property regulated by the British Museum (Purchase of Land) Act 1894.

  Resolution agreed to.

  BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.
  BETTING DUTIES BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

  COLLEGES OF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY (STAFF SALARIES)
  Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. I. Fraser.]
  11.5 p.m.
  Mr. George Thomas: I wish to draw attention to a matter where there is, I believe, discrimination against the colleges of advanced technology. I apologise that the title of this Adjournment debate in the notices about the building is slightly misleading, but I wish to deal largely with questions of salary and salary negotiation.
  In 1961, the Minister of Education made an important announcement concerning the colleges of advanced technology. In an effort to raise their status and put them on a level with the universities, he removed the C.A.T.s from the control of local education authorities, established for them governing bodies, and, at the same time as he announced their promotion to direct grant status, he added that, if the colleges were to be able to attract staff of the quality they needed, they must be in a position to offer to their staffs salaries comparable with those paid to university staff carrying similar responsibilities. I think that we all appreciated the reason for that statement, because the matter of recruitment of the right quality and the right numbers of teachers was of the first importance.
  240
  Obviously, the Minister felt that it was too urgent a matter to await the report of the Robbins Committee. But, since the 1961 announcement, the Ministry of Education has done nothing, as far as I can see, to establish salary negotiating machinery for these colleges of advanced technology. It is important to remember in this connection that university staff deal with the University Grants Committee and with the Treasury, but the Minister of Education carries full responsibility for the staff of the C.A.T.s. I think that I am right in that.
  On 28th December last, the Treasury announced the long overdue increase for university teachers. The House will remember the great debate we had here, when the Opposition attacked the Government for their dilatory treatment of the university teachers. This 10 per cent. increase was announced the day after Boxing Day. At the same time, the Minister referred the remuneration of academic staff of universities to the National Incomes Commission for review under paragraph 4 (ii) of the National Incomes Commission White Paper, Cmnd. 1844, and the Treasury added that this reference would also cover colleges of advanced technology.
  This reference has been made without any consultation whatever with the professional bodies who represent the teachers serving in the colleges of advanced technology. It sets a dangerous precedent. It is bound to alarm other professional bodies. Is negotiation on salaries to cease in the future? Do the Government propose to anticipate salary claims from other unions in this way and shelve their own responsibility by pushing on to the National Incomes Commission a duty which rightly belongs to them?
  Lack of consultation with those who represent the teachers in the colleges of advanced technology is a great error, but there is another disturbing aspect of the Treasury's announcement. The Treasury has announced that it has invited the University Grants Committee to recommend how this additional sum should be distributed between the various grades of staff In its announcement, the Treasury goes on to say that
  "Any distribution recommended by the University Grants Committee will involve some consequent adjustment as from the same

  241
  date to the salaries of the more senior staff at the colleges of advanced technology."
  This means that the large majority of teachers in these colleges will get no further increase until the National Incomes Commission reports. It means also that they have to wait until after the Robbins Committee reports, which, the Minister has recently indicated, is still some months away.
  I believe this to be a most unfortunate error. It means that the Minister has postponed still further parity with the universities, which he declared and we believed to be urgent eighteen months ago. It also means that when the new Burnham salary soaks, which are being negotiated, come into operation, as they should, on 1st April next, when the present scales end, the majority of teachers in the advanced technology colleges will be worse off than those in technical colleges to whom the Burnham award will apply. They will be the only category of teachers who will fail to get an increase in the spring.
  When the Treasury refers to some of the more senior members of the staff of colleges of advanced technology, we are left in doubt. Those who staff the colleges want to know how senior a man must be to qualify for this increase. Must he be a senior or principal lecturer? The overwhelming majority of teachers in these colleges are on scales which, at the maximum, are substantially lower than the new scales given to university lecturers.
  I understand from the reply given by the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), shortly before Christmas, that 1,022 members of staff of the colleges of advanced technology are below the level of senior lecturer. Only 834 are of the level of senior lecturer or above. A lecturer in a college of advanced technology is fixed at a maximum of £1,800 and a senior lecturer can rise to £2,000. Under the recent award, however, a man in a comparable grade in a university gets a maximum of approximately £2,150 plus family allowances, which can amount to a substantial sum.
  In all the colleges of advanced technology, 55 per cent. of the staff are below the status of senior lecturer. I want to know whether they are cut out from
  242
  any increase under the present award. In Birmingham, which is the best example, only 45 per cent. are below the status of senior lecturer. I regret to say that in the Welsh College of Advanced Technology, 67 per cent. of the staff are below the status of senior lecturer. I therefore want to ask the Minister one or two questions.
  What prevents him from settling the problem of, first, upsetting the university teachers and, now, upsetting the teachers in the colleges of advanced technology? What prevents him from establishing parity between both these educational institutions? As someone said recently, this is the only country in the world in which these colleges of advanced technology would not be called technical universities. If they are to be given the status which I am sure the House wants them to have it must come in the salary field as well as in every other field. Secondly, will the Minister undertake tonight that those who fall below the grade of senior staff will not be worse off after April than teachers who serve in the technical colleges to whom the Burnham Committee Report will apply?
  Thirdly, will he give an undertaking that steps will now be taken to provide salary negotiating machinery for the colleges of advanced technology as exists in—I suppose—every other walk of life in this country? I hope that he will not tell me he will refer this question of negotiating machinery to the National Incomes Commission, because it is his responsibility and his alone. The Minister has it in his power to act quickly in this regard, and I believe he can restore a great deal of good will if he is prepared so to do.
  My fourth question is: will he advise the governing bodies of some of the colleges of advanced technology, including the Welsh college, of the desirability of revising their staff gradings? The introduction of these colleges of advanced technology is one of the most welcome improvements in recent years, but I believe they cannot serve the nation as they ought unless those who are employed in their service feel that they are given the proper status and absolute parity with those who serve in the universities of the land. I am grateful to the Minister for the patience with which he

  243
  has listened to me, and I can only hope that he will be able to give satisfactory answers to my questions.
  11.17 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Christopher Chatawav): The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) has laid stress, as I knew he would, and he was right to do, upon the need for parity of esteem, status and treatment between the colleges of advanced technology and universities, and it was from this desire that his questions to me stemmed tonight. I would hope to show that it is that very consideration which has led my right hon. Friend to take these steps which he has proposed.
  The House will forgive me if, in seeking to make this explanation, I start from the time before 1st April, 1962. When the colleges of advanced technology were maintained or assisted by the local education authorities like other technical colleges and the salaries of the academic staffs in them were determined by the Burnham Technical Committee, it meant those staffs had responsibility and qualifications similar to those of university staffs although negotiated under a different system and on a different timetable. To remove this anomaly the Minister proposed as part of his general proposals for transferring C.A.T.s to direct grant that the salaries of those staffs should be related to and negotiated at the same time as those for university staffs. At the time when the proposals for transfer of C.A.T.s to direct grant were under discussion in 1961 the Minister said that if his proposals were accepted he would open discussions with a view to setting up suitable machinery for the negotiation of salaries. Therefore, it has been clear from that time that one consequence of the transfer would be that salaries in the C.A.T.s would be related to those of university staffs.
  Mr. G. Thomas: All the staffs.
  Mr. Chataway: This was the intention, certainly, and this was the ideal to which we were working, and this gives the answer to the second question which the hon. Gentleman put to me, that of the relationship between teachers in technical colleges and those in colleges of advanced
  244
  technology. Clearly, the intention is that the teachers in CA.T.s should have their salaries related to the universities.
  Towards the end of 1961, the Minister began discussions with the staff associations for the colleges and subsequently with the national representative bodies—the Association of University Teachers and the Association of Teachers in Technical Institutions—on the right form of negotiating machinery. Meantime, the salaries of the staffs continued, even after 1st April, 1962, to be regulated according to the provisions of the Burnham Reports.
  The hon. Member will appreciate that the two salary structures—university and Burnham—were different and that it would not be easy to arrange a smooth transition from the Burnham system to a new one more closely related to the university system. By the end of last summer, broad agreement had been reached between the Ministry and the national teachers' bodies concerned on the main outlines of the negotiating procedure to be followed.
  In the ordinary way the next step would have been to bring this machinery into play at the same time as the normal university salary negotiating procedure. This would have implemented the Minister's original proposal that CAT. salaries should be reviewed at the same time as university salaries. At this time, however, the Government had been considering the position with regard to university salary negotiations and eventually came to the conclusion that the most appropriate way of dealing with the review of university salaries was to refer it to the National Incomes Commission under Paragraph 4 (ii) of the National Incomes Commission White Paper. The hon. Member will see in that paragraph the limitations that are set upon this procedure, and that may allay some of his fears as to the precedent set on this occasion.
  The question then arose of whether CAT. salaries should be referred at the same time to the Commission, and it was decided that they should. This seems a right and, indeed, inevitable decision if one accepts, as I think one must and as I think the hon. Member and the House wish to, that these staffs are doing very similar jobs of work to those in universities.

  245
  The Commission has not yet settled the procedure for the submission of evidence by all the interested parties, but when it has done so the various bodies concerned, such as the Association of University Teachers and the Association of Teachers in Technical Institutions, will be fully informed, and the hon. Member can rest assured that arrangements will be made for the preparation and presentation of evidence by the interested parties.
  Now we come to arrangements made for an immediate increase in university salaries and consequential adjustments to C.A.T. salaries. The arrangements for the N.I.C. Review will take some time to prepare and the Government accept that an immediate increase for university teachers is urgently needed. Unlike the C.A.T.s, these teachers have received no increase since January, 1960, other than a 3 per cent. rise in April, 1962, which was allocated wholly to junior grades.
  Thus, as the House will know, it has been decided to authorise an immediate overall increase of 10 per cent. in university salaries. Again, the question arises of whether something should be done for C.A.T.s at the same lime, and, again, my right hon. Friend's view is determined by the fact that there should be a relation between university and C.A.T. salaries. This means that there must be an adjustment of C.A.T. salaries, but an adjustment is not equally necessary for all the C.A.T. staffs. It must be remembered that owing to the very substantial increase which C.A.T. staffs received as a result of the last Burnham settlement in January, 1962, junior staffs in the colleges at present enjoy an advantage over all the junior grades in the universities.
  For example, an assistant lecturer in a university is paid on a scale of £900-£1,050, whereas an assistant lecturer, Grade B, in a college of advanced technology may start at £1,000—according to my information—and sometimes more, rising to about £1,500. The university lecturer scale is at present £1,150-£1,950, whereas the scale applicable to grades of lecturer and senior lecturer in a college of advanced technology, which correspond to the university lecturer grade, ranges between £1,600 and £2,000.
  Whatever may be decided about the distribution of a university increase—
  246
  and that has to be decided after the recommendation of the University Grants Committee—it seems certain that the remuneration of the junior grades in colleges of advanced technology will continue to compare favourably with that of corresponding grades in the universities.
  This led my right hon. Friend to the conclusion that adjustments in the C.A.T. salaries should be limited to the more senior grades. The precise adjustments called for will be a matter for discussion with the teachers' associations and the representatives of the chairmen and principals of the colleges, and meetings will be held with these bodies as soon as it is known what increases are to be approved for the various grades of university staff. Here, again, my right hon. Friend's concern is to secure as near a parallel as possible between the staff of the colleges of advanced tehnology and the staffs of the universities.
  The hon. Member asked me exactly what the word "senior" means, and whether it will be limited solely to senior lecturers, or will include lecturers. On that point, I am not able to give? him a specific answer, for a reason which I hope he will understand. It is that, clearly, if we wish to maintain this attitude towards parity, we must await the recommendations of the University Grants Committee and the decisions made upon the University Grants Committee's recommendations, and the way in which increases are made in the staffs of senior lecturers at the colleges—and exactly what will be the dividing line between "senior" and "junior" in this respect must await the recommendations of the U.G.C. and the discussions that will be held with the principals and chairmen, and the associations.
  Mr. G. Thomas: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the A.T.T.I. has direct access to the University Grants Committee to deal with the salaries question?
  Mr. Chataway: No. The University Grants Committee will make recommendations only on the way in which it considers the increases ought to be allocated among university staffs, but it will clearly be upon the basis of that recommendation that the discussions between my right hon. Friend and the teachers' associations will take place.
  Mrs. Eirene White: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that while we understand that there may be some difficulty over this intermediate period, this is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. The salaries for the staffs in the colleges of advanced technology are being settled at one remove by a body which has no connection with them, and not only on which they have no representation but to which they have no right of access or—as happens with the U.G.C.—membership, so that it will not be composed of persons with direct knowledge of the institutions about which they are making recommendations.
  We hope that the whole situation will be cleared up as soon as possible, and that far more satisfactory negotiating arrangements can shortly be made.
  Mr. Chataway: I accept that it is a difficult transitional period. But I do not want to leave the impression that the decision about increases for C.A.T. staffs would be dictated by the decision arrived at as a result of the recommendations of the University Grants Committee. Obviously, if we wish to maintain something near parity, the recommendations of the University Grants Committee will be relevant. But they will be followed by discussions with the teachers' associations and representatives of the chairmen and principals of the colleges. After those discussions decisions about increases for the senior staff in the C.A.T.s will be made. So there is no question of their receiving an absolute diktat from the University Grants Committee on which they are not represented.
  Mrs. White: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the matter
  248
  would be greatly simplified if the C.A.T.s could be turned into universities?
  Mr. Chataway: From the point of view of this discussion there can be no disagreeing that that would simplify my task tonight. But for the wider questions, which the hon. Gentleman did not really raise, like so many others, we shall have to wait for Robbins.
  This leaves the question of the college establishments, promotions and upgrading to which the hon. Gentleman referred. On those, I can reassure him. The question of the appropriate establishment of staff in any college is quite separate from the appropriate level of remuneration for each grade. The governing bodies of the colleges fix their own establishments of staff subject to the overall financial limitation set by the amount of the annual budget approved by my right hon. Friend and to the limit on the number of posts at head of department, reader and principle lecturer level. These limits are fixed in relation to the teaching needs of the college and the financial resources available from year to year. They are not affected by the decision concerning the salary scales for each grade.
  Having had the good fortune to visit Loughborough College of Advanced Technology last week, I fully share the conviction of the hon. Gentleman that these colleges must be recognised as equivalent in status to the universities, and I hope that I have been able to reassure him and the House that throughout my right hon. Friend has been acting in that conviction.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Twelve o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  New Forest
  New Forest
  Milk Marketing Board
  Milk Marketing Board
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  N.A.T.O. Conference
  N.A.T.O. Conference
  Land, Surrey
  Land, Surrey
  Blue Steel
  Blue Steel
  Skybolt
  Skybolt
  Hound Dog
  Hound Dog
  Polaris Submarines
  Polaris Submarines
  Nuclear Forces and Weapons
  Nuclear Forces and Weapons
  V-Bombers
  V-Bombers
  Armed Forces (Operational Rôles)
  Armed Forces (Operational Rôles)
  Missiles and Polaris Submarines (Costs)
  Missiles and Polaris Submarines (Costs)
  Nuclear Missile Launcher
  Nuclear Missile Launcher
  Nassau Agreement
  Nassau Agreement
  Deterrent Credibility
  Deterrent Credibility
  British Army of the Rhine
  British Army of the Rhine
  Polaris Crews (Training)
  Polaris Crews (Training)
  Polaris Missiles
  Polaris Missiles
  V-Bomber
  V-Bomber
  Pandora
  Pandora
  Military Research and Development
  Military Research and Development
  Bahamas Agreement
  Bahamas Agreement
  Bomber Command
  Bomber Command
  Nuclear Weapons
  Nuclear Weapons
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Weather Conditions (Forecast)
  Weather Conditions (Forecast)
  V-Bombers (Anglo-American Exercise)
  V-Bombers (Anglo-American Exercise)
  Belfast Freighter
  Belfast Freighter
  O.R.351
  O.R.351
  Thor Missiles (Dismantling)
  Thor Missiles (Dismantling)
ROADS
  North-East
  North-East
  Duel Carriageways (Chain-link Fencing)
  Duel Carriageways (Chain-link Fencing)
  Road Accidents (Street Lighting)
  Road Accidents (Street Lighting)
  A.1 (Newcastle-Edinburgh)
  A.1 (Newcastle-Edinburgh)
  Durham and Northumberland
  Durham and Northumberland
RAILWAYS
  Pensions
  Pensions
MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT
  Channel Crossing
  Channel Crossing
  Transport Holding Company (Directions)
  Transport Holding Company (Directions)
  Shattering of Windscreens (Accidents)
  Shattering of Windscreens (Accidents)
EMPLOYMENT
  Barking
  Barking
  Technical Colleges (Safety Instruction)
  Technical Colleges (Safety Instruction)
  Sunderland
  Sunderland
  Northern Region
  Northern Region
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  GERMANY (NUCLEAR WEAPONS)
  GERMANY (NUCLEAR WEAPONS)
  Gateshead
  Gateshead
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMISSION (MEMORANDUM)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMISSION (MEMORANDUM)
  UNITED NATIONS CHARTER
  UNITED NATIONS CHARTER
  WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME
  WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME
  SCOTTISH TRAWLER "RED CRUSADER" (INCIDENT)
  SCOTTISH TRAWLER "RED CRUSADER" (INCIDENT)
  DENMARK AND THE FAROES (FISHING LIMITS)
  DENMARK AND THE FAROES (FISHING LIMITS)
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Vulcan Bombers
  Vulcan Bombers
ROYAL NAVY
  Ships (Age)
  Ships (Age)
JAMAICA
  Secretary of State's Visit
  Secretary of State's Visit
COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  Empire and Commonwealth Games
  Empire and Commonwealth Games
EDUCATION
  Technical Colleges (Staff)
  Technical Colleges (Staff)
  Special School Places
  Special School Places
  Training Colleges (Lecturers)
  Training Colleges (Lecturers)
  Old Schools
  Old Schools
NATIONAL FINANCE
  University Students
  University Students
  Civil Service (Pensions)
  Civil Service (Pensions)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Ambulance (New Type)
  Ambulance (New Type)
HOUSING
  Ex-Service Men
  Ex-Service Men
COAL
  Smokeless Fuel
  Smokeless Fuel
SCOTLAND
  Betting Shops
  Betting Shops
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Commonwealth Trade
  Commonwealth Trade
  Scotland
  Scotland

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

LORD SILSOE
Sir Arthur Malcolm Trustram Eve, Baronet, G.B.E., M.C., Q.C., having been created Baron Silsoe, of Silsoe in the County of Bedford—Was (in the usual mariner) introduced.

BUILDING DEVELOPMENTS IN LONDON
2.46 p.m.
LORD BOSSOM: 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 concerned at the steady and, in fact, accelerating destruction of the charm and character of London now taking place and much resented by many people; and, if they are concerned, what is going to be done to halt the destruction of this irreplaceable asset that has given joy to English people and attracted visitors from all over the world for a century.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS): My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's wish to see London's character preserved and, in particular, that the scale of its buildings should not be altered. But redevelopment of much of London is inevitable and indeed is in the national interest. This must mean the loss of some existing buildings and that some familiar scenes are changed. The London scene cannot be frozen—I assure the noble Lord that I am speaking metaphorically. It is and always has been the physical
10
expression of a developing, progressive society.
My right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the London County Council are very conscious of the importance of safeguarding buildings of architectural and historic interest, and any proposal to destroy these is considered very carefully in schemes for redevelopment. Where old buildings have to go and areas change, the essential thing for the authorities, the developers and, above all, the architects, is to see that buildings of high quality of design are put in their place.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that comprehensive Answer, and recognising at once that we have to progress and to modify certain developments, may I ask whether he would consider with his Minister creating an advisory committee of independent people without Government connections—not civil servants or anything of that sort, or any body connected with the Government, but publicly respected people who have good taste, which fact has already been established by their long life and activity elsewhere? Would my noble friend also consider suggesting places which could be designated as reserve areas, where no buildings may be erected beyond a definite height and where they must be harmonious and in character with the existing buildings?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for his comprehensive supplementary. In regard to the last part of it, we have already had the argument about areas set aside for high buildings or reserved for buildings which are not high, and I do not think I need answer that question again. But I should be glad to put forward his suggestion to my right honourable friend. What it really comes down to is this question of taste and who is to be the arbiter of taste. In most cases, as the noble Lord is aware, it is the local planning authorities who finally decide these matters. But, after all, there are architects, and I should hope that they would put up buildings of good quality. In rare cases it is for my right honourable friend to take a final decision, and he can do so with the benefit of the advice of the Royal Fine Art Commission. The suggestion that this matter should be taken

11
entirely out of the hands of my right honourable friend is a question for Parliament—whether in the last resort Parliament or some independent body should be the arbiter in taste. I do not think I can go further than that. I will put forward the noble Lord's suggestion to my right honourable friend.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, while thanking, my noble friend for that answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that the Royal Fine Art Commission have made emphatic recommendations that certain buildings should not be erected and they have been overruled by someone else? But we will not discuss these questions of taste, as he so appropriately remarked just now. That is a matter for architects and others. Having had a little experience on this subject, as I am sure he knows, I think there is a lot to be considered before we allow London, one of the most beautiful cities of the world, to be ruined as it is being ruined to-day.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I agree that this is a most important and difficult problem, and it really refers back to my previous Answer that in the last resort the Government of the day can overrule the Royal Fine Art Commission or any other advisory authority. But it is up to Parliament to decide whether that course is right or not, and I cannot say more than that.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, while again thanking my noble friend for his answer, I hope that he will carry forward the suggestion to his Minister to see whether they can get some practical results.

NAVAL SHIPBUILDING AND UNEMPLOYMENT
2.52 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: 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 will take steps to adjust the naval shipbuilding programme in order to bring forward the ordering dates of ships and help to relieve unemployment in the shipyards.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, we have considered the possibility of accelerating the naval shipbuilding programme in order to help employment in the shipbuilding industry in its present difficulties. As the noble Lord will be aware, a programme for building Polaris-type nuclear submarines is now being worked out. There is also the normal programme for naval shipbuilding, under which orders will be placed from time to time during the coming year. These programmes will impose a heavy charge on the Exchequer and a heavy burden on the technical departments of the Admiralty, and it is not possible to add very substantially to them. I am, however, glad to say that it has been found possible to bring forward the ordering of two more ships, one a Fleet replenishment ship and the other a tanker. We had intended to order one Fleet replenishment ship in the early summer; we shall now order two. We hope to invite suitable shipbuilders to submit competitive tenders for them next month. As regards the tanker, we invited tenders some time ago for the design and building of two tankers. We shall instead place orders for three ships. These orders will be placed very shortly.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords. I thank my noble friend for his Answer, and I congratulate him on taking the first step in the right direction.

USE OF WORD "TARGETED"
LORD CONESFORD: 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 the word "targeted" in paragraphs 6 and 8 of the Statement on Nuclear Defence Systems, dated 21 December 1962 (Cmnd. 1915), means "furnished with a target or shield, or with something resembling one"; or whether it bears some meaning hither-to unknown.]
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the phrase that the Forces in question would be "targeted in accordance with NATO plans" conveys succinctly and clearly the meaning that they will be assigned

13
points at which they should aim in the event of operations. It is not intended to convey that targets would be part of the furniture of these Forces.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for his Answer? Is he aware that the previous use of the word best known to lexicographers was by Gauden, who wrote in 1653:
"Not rough and targeted as the rhinoceros but soft and gently clothed as the sheep."
Are Her Majesty's Government targeted?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think all your Lordships will admire the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, looks after the use of the English langage in this House. But I also have a great respect for Sir Ernest Gowers, and I remember that he once said that it is one of the beauties of our language that nouns can so readily be converted into adjectives and verbs. I hope very much that, after a period of years, the noble Lord will find that the word "targeted" is beautiful.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I assure my noble friend that I have no objection to the word on grounds of beauty, but merely on grounds of obscurity? Is he aware that there are a great number of people, both in this country and in America, who like to ascertain from time to time what it is that their rulers are trying to tell them?

DEVELOPMENTS IN KATANGA
2.54 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: 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 will make a statement on developments in Katanga.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, the House will recollect that in August, 1962, U Thant had put forward his Plan of Reconciliation as the basis for a settlement of the troubles in the Congo. It had three main features. The first was a plan for an equitable division of revenues between the Provinces and the Central Govern-
14
ment: the second provided for the integration of the Katangan gendarmerie in the Congolese army, and the third for the establishment of a federal constitution.
This plan was supported by Her Majesty's Government, although we felt bound to record our reservations about the use of force to apply it. Our concern ever since the fighting of the autumn of 1961 had been lest a renewal of fighting might lead to the destruction of the sources of wealth on which the whole future of the Congo must rest.
When, owing to rising tension between the United Nations and the Katangese, fighting started in the last week of 1962, Her Majesty's Government's influence was used to try to restrain the use of force and counter-force and bring the parties to the dispute back to a settlement by discussion and negotiation. We had no wish to interfere in Congolese internal politics. That was not and is not our purpose. Our sole concern was to try to avert an economic disaster for the Congo by using our influence with the Katanga authorities to bring about cooperation with the United Nations, and to counsel the United Nations not to interpret freedom of movement throughout the Congo as entitling them to impose a political settlement on the Congo by force—something which the United Nations should not do if it is to retain the confidence of its members.
The House will have followed the confused and anxious events of the past month. They will have noted that the Katangan authorities have declared the end of secession and accepted the free movement of United Nations troops throughout Katanga and that U Thant has confirmed that the United Nations recognises Mr. Tshombe as Provincial President.
During the last few weeks it seemed that the Congo was poised on the edge of a disaster which it would have taken years to repair. I believe that ruin might well have overtaken the country had it not been for the conciliatory action taken under instructions by the British and Belgian Consuls in Elisabethville. Now the shape of the Constitution has to be settled, and the greatest need is for wisdom and statemanship so that reunification can go forward with the willing consent of all concerned.

15
Her Majesty's Government hope that U Thant's expressed desire to convert the military operation of the United Nations into an operation of economic and technical assistance to the Congo will be quickly achieved.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, while we all welcome the recent events, in so far as they may now lead to a peaceful settlement of the problems of the Congo, there are three important questions which I feel bound to put to my noble friend today. The first is whether it is not the fact that virtually every assurance given to Her Majesty's Government in regard to Katanga, including the promise by U Thant that force would not be used to impose a political settlement, has been violated in the last few weeks. The second point is this. Has not the recent United Nations' action in regard to Katanga far exceeded the scope of the Security Council's resolutions and, in fact, put powers into the hands of the Secretariat which in certain circumstances could be very dangerous? The third point is whether, in view of these facts, Her Majesty's Government will not now call for a special meeting of the Security Council to examine these deplorable developments and, in particular, to appoint an impartial Committee of investigation to examine these matters on the spot and to report to the Security Council? Would that not be the very least which Her Majesty's Opposition would insist upon if similar events had taken place in a British territory overseas?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the first of my noble friend's questions was whether the assurances given by U Thant to Her Majesty's Government and other countries had been honoured. I think it is very difficult, short of a debate—and we shall have a Foreign Affairs debate the week after next—to go into this matter in any detail. The United Nations did say on a number of occasions, through the Secretary-General, that their objectives were limited. When they found themselves in certain situations with opposition, those objectives which they had declared were, I think, undoubtedly exceeded. In the particular case of entry into Jadotville, the Secretary-General made it quite clear that this was done without instructions and that there was a failure of communications.
16
The second question put by my noble friend was whether the recent action had exceeded the scope of the resolution in the Security Council. My Lords, I think that the Secretary-General had an exceedingly difficult task here. He was told to keep law and order in the Congo, and he was told that the United Nations might have freedom of movement throughout the Congo. Our concern the whole time was that the resolution which authorised the United Nations to have freedom of movement throughout the Congo should not be interpreted in such a way as to lead the United Nations to impose a political settlement based on certain political conditions in the Congo. I find it extremely difficult at the present moment to assess whether the United Nations have overstepped the line, and I think it is much more profitable to the security of the Congo, given the present situation in which U Thant has recognised Mr. Tshombe as Provincial President, to endeavour to make that work, hoping that he and Mr. Adoula will come together.
The third and last question put to me was whether a meeting of the Security Council might not be profitable in order to conduct, really, a postmortem on the United Nations' activities in the Congo. I will convey this feeling (if there is such a feeling) to the Secretary-General. I know of the action taken in certain circumstances. For instance in the breakdown of communications upon the United Nations entry into Jadotville, the Secretary-General ordered an inquiry into this, and, as a result, as I have said, they acknowledged a breakdown of communications. I think that is all I can say now, but I think we might return to this in the foreign affairs debate in two weeks' time.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I think most of us would agree, and I hope I may ask the Foreign Secretary whether he also agrees, that the important thing now is to get constructive developments going on in the Congo in order to achieve the full policy laid down by U Thant, which was supported by Her Majesty's Government.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords. I can see nothing wrong at all in the plan of reconciliation which I outlined in the opening paragraphs of my Answer

17
to my noble friend, and we should concentrate on that. But we must be careful in this country that we ourselves are not guilty of the mistake, which I think the United Nations was in danger of making, of trying to interfere in the internal politics of the Congo. It must be left to the Congolese to settle this; but we support the plan of reconciliation and the most constructive thing now, I think, is to see that it is implemented.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, could the Foreign Secretary make one point clear, please? As I understand it, Her Majesty's Government issued a statement deprecating and criticising the military action of the United Nations forces. Will the British taxpayer be expected to contribute monies to the policy and action which Her Majesty's Government have thus condemned?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, at a very early stage when the fighting broke out, I thought it right to issue a very definite warning that force should not be used to impose a political settlement. The question of the financing of the United Nations is, I think, a matter which we must consider separately. We have an obligation to fulfil our assessed contributions to the United Nations for its general purposes. We have supported in the United Nations the proposal of the International Court of Justice that special actions of this kind should be part of that assessment, which should be paid by the countries of the United Nations. I must admit to my noble friend that neither the Russians nor the Communist bloc nor France paid for this operation, and something like 60 out of 109 members of the United Nations have paid not a penny towards this operation. Therefore, when we came to consider this matter next month in the Fifth Committee of the United Nations, I think we shall certainly have to make it clear that the United States and the United Kingdom cannot be expected to carry the whole of the expenses of the United Nations end that members really must fulfil the whole of their obligations.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, surely it is not true that the United Nations has used force and interfered in the internal politics of the Congo.
18
Where there has been strife or action, it has been in defence of themselves from attack by the other side, and the use of the forces of the United Nations has been directed solely to implementing the policy laid down by U Thant and supported by the whole United Nations.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, as the noble Lord who put down this Question invited the views of the Opposition, may I, as one member of the Opposition, invite the noble Earl to convey the view to the noble Lord who invited it that some of us are very suspicious of the ulterior motives of certain business interests in the Congo? Therefore, we derive considerable satisfaction that this settlement has been established by the United Nations.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the noble Lady really must not, I think, make allegations of this kind, and certainly she must not link them in any way with actions of Her Majesty's Government. When it comes to British interests in the Congo, they are marginal. The total British investment in the Congo amounts to something like £30 million. The division of that inside the Congo is some £19 million in Katanga, I think, and some £12 million outside. So, really, it is impossible to argue—and I hope the noble Lady will not try to do so—that Her Majesty's Government have been in any way influenced by business considerations.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, the noble Earl did not hear the question put by the noble Lord, who invited the Opposition's views, and said he was sure the Opposition would take a certain action. I said that was not so.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the Foreign Secretary 'whether, if he is going to put this view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, to the Secretary-General, he will also convey to him that this is not a unanimous view of this House? There are many of us on this side who deprecate an inquiry at this stage. Further, I think—and I hope he will agree with me—it would mean that the views of Her Majesty's Government would be prejudiced because it would be felt in the United Nations that we were trying to drag our feet.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I do not think there is any danger of that kind. If certain actions of the United Nations have been questioned, I think it is in the interests of the United Nations that the questions should be answered. That is as far as I can go.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, as the noble Lady opposite has referred to me, may I ask my noble friend whether in fact the British business interests—with which, incidentally, I have no connection whatever—have not in fact benefited by what has taken place recently with the return of peace and quiet in the Congo? My concern in regard to the events of the immediate past is not merely from a desire to hold a postmortem, but arises because the United Nations have gone seriously off the rails and relates to whether we should not now be examining the position so that in future these dangerous tendencies can be avoided.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, as we are discussing the Congo situation, may I take this opportunity to ask my noble friend the Foreign Secretary whether he has any news of the British pilot—I presume, a Vampire pilot—who was with the Katanga forces at Kolwezi and who endeavoured to escape to Angola but was handed back by the Portuguese to the Katangan authorities? Also, was there any truth in the statement made by a Katangan officer on Sunday last to the effect that this British subject would not be in a position to see the sun rise on the following day?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, of course I shall be glad to have from my noble friend any details he can give me; but all this, I would say, is news to me.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I would inform your Lordships that at a suitable moment after half-past three my noble friend Lord Dundee will be making a statement on National Insurance benefits.

THE SCOTTISH ECONOMY AND INDUSTRY
3.10 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH rose to draw attention to the state of the Scottish economy, with special reference to the policy of Her Majesty's Government for the distribution of industry; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, my motive in introducing this motion is to give an opportunity for a general discussion on the state of the Scottish economy to-day. A general debate of this kind, though a regular event in another place, is something of a rarity in your Lordships' House. I believe that the last occasion on which we had such a debate was some five years ago, on the Motion of my noble friend Lord Dundee, who I am glad to see is one of the two speakers who will be replying on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to-day. But to resume our sittings after a Recess with a debate of this kind must, I think, be unique. If to some of your Lordships it may seem out of place to debate a subject of this kind in the context of the momentous events, national and international, that have occurred since we last met, I would urge on a number of counts that it is highly appropriate that we should discuss this subject to-day.
First, there is the widespread and growing concern at the increasing slackness in the economy and the rising tide of unemployment. But there is a wider significance, too. Scotland reflects in miniature, yet in a more pronounced form, many of the problems facing the whole of the British economy: problems of inadequate growth and of the need to make the fullest possible use of our ail too scarce national resources if we are to hold our own in the world to-day. It is fitting that we should have this debate on the eve of the discussion which we believe is to take place in the National Economic Development Council tomorrow on this whole question of economic growth, and at a time when events in Brussels and Paris are driving us to what must be a complete reappraisal of our economic course.
I make no apologies for limiting the field of this debate to Scotland. While we are proud to be an integral part of the United Kingdom, we are nevertheless

21
still a country in our own right with our own history, customs, traditions, and, clearly, our difficulties, too. Scotland stands to-day at an economic crossroads, and while it is Scotland we shall be debating to-day, I sincerely hope that what we say may be of concern and help to those of your Lordships who are concerned with similar problems in other parts of the Kingdom, among them, no doubt, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who I am particularly sorry is unable to be here to-day. He is, I gather, engaged on the duties of one of his multifarious concerns, other than the North-East of England. To those of us who have been trying for a number of years to put the Scottish economy on a sounder basis it is a matter of interest to find that it is only in the last few months, since the North-East of England also has felt the full rigour of the economic wind of change, that the public at large have been faced with the fact that these are not just local problems, to be dealt with by local measures, but problems of national concern demanding national solutions.
The immediate cause of this concern is the realisation that half a million people in Britain to-day are out of work, one-fifth of those people in the one-tenth of the population resident North of the Border. In the North-East and Scotland one worker in 20 is on the books of the labour exchange. The conscience of the British people has been stirred, as witness the spate of articles and radio programmes, delegations and deputations and manifestos. It is indeed right that the country should be concerned at what is not only a grave social and humanitarian problem but also a gross neglect of its all too scarce resources.
But, my Lords, we shall be deceiving ourselves if we think that unemployment, any more than famine, in those countries Where it occurs, can be dealt with by emergency measures, pushed under the carpet and conveniently forgotten. Because, just like famine, as sure as night follows day unemployment will return to haunt us unless we tackle it at the roots and deal with the causes responsible for it. Unemployment is an outward sign of a deep-seated economic disease, the imbalance and inadequate growth of the economy. Equally, we shall be deceiving ourselves if we heed the cries of the alarmists, of those who
22
cry "Woe! woe!" and would have us believe that we are down and out. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is a great deal in the Scottish economy which is sound and holds promise for the future, and if we face our undoubted difficulties with a cool head and a determination to solve them, I believe that these prospects will be realised.
The clues to their solution, I venture to suggest, lie in the history of our industry, its birth, its growth, its structure. The Treaty of Union, of which a copy is in the Library and will be familiar to your Lordships, opened the seas to the great trade in commodities between Scotland and North America and those other overseas countries which laid the foundation of the greatness of Glasgow and the Clyde. The mechanical skills evolved to process these commodities, coupled with the development of Scotland's resources of iron ore and coal and the discovery of steam, brought in the great engineering achievements of the 1800s, which by the turn of that century had made Scotland the undoubted leader of the world in heavy engineering and shipbuilding. A few years later these industries were expanded and strained to their utmost limits to provide the sinews of war. But for them the fruits of victory were bitter; the ensuing depression and unemployment are something that many of your Lordships will remember far better than I can.
A second time the call came, in 1940; and again in the '40s these same industries played their full part in a victory Which had, fortunately, consequences less dire for Scotland. This fact was in large measure due to the vision and devotion of a small group of Scotsmen who had resolved that the unemployment of the '30s must never be repeated and that to this end the industrial base of Scotland must be broadened and brought up to date. We owe a very great debt for this to, among others, two Members of this House, the noble Earl, Lord Elgin and the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, who, I am glad to see is to speak to-day. Their principal tool was the concept of the industrial estate, the first of which was opened at Hillington, near Glasgow, in 1937, and which proved a powerful magnet for the newer and expanding industries. Some of these, notably electronics and the manufacture of aircraft

23
engines, came to Scotland as a direct consequence of the war. Others followed soon after the war, many of them thanks to the untiring efforts of Lord Bilsland and his colleagues, who sold Scotland to North America, with the resultant flow of American industry in the following years.
Another reason why they came was particularly the availability of factories to rent at attractive rates. As a result, we have to-day in Scotland a whole range of new and growing industries which were unknown before the war—for example, precision engineering, chemicals, instruments, clocks, business machines and many more. Now we have our own sheet steel manufacture, and the motor industry is taking root. Scottish industry has a new look and a broader base than at any time before.
This is a good start, but it is not enough. Over the last ten years, while employment in Britain has increased by 11 per cent., in Scotland it has grown by only 2½ per cent. Largely this is due to the continuing differences in the pattern of industry. For example, the primary industries—agriculture, fisheries, forestry and mining in particular—accounted in 1961 for nearly 9 per cent. of Scottish employment, compared with 6 per cent. only for Great Britain as a whole; and most of these are industries where employment tends to decrease.
Here I must cross swords with those who refer to these and to other industries, like shipbuilding, as "declining" industries. Contracting in employment, yes; but declining, no. This does not mean that they have had their day. In many cases they have adjusted themselves to new levels of demand and increased their efficiency. Our agriculture and forestry are second to none, and I hope that some noble Lords will speak about them in more detail to-day. Our shipbuilders are winning orders despite thin markets and against world competition. Our coal mining, despite a period of drastic reconstruction, is showing a remarkable increase in efficiency in the last few months. These and others of our traditional industries have still a great and vital part to play in our economy.
But, quite apart from the contraction in the primary industries, we are faced with the fact that manufacturing industry in
24
Scotland provides only 35 per cent. of all employment compared with 40 per cent. in Britain as a whole. The remainder is taken up with the primary industries and the services. So within the manufacturing industries alone in Scotland, because of the greater proportion of contracting industries—contracting in the sense that they are employing fewer people—we have recently been losing some 10,000 jobs a year, or double our true proportion of the total for Great Britain; while because of an insufficiency of the growth industries we have been creating only some 15,000 new jobs a year, which is again about three-quarters of the proportion for the country as a whole. The net result of 5,000 jobs a year increase—that is, the 15,000 less the 10,000—is not enough for a healthy economy, even if it continues; indeed, in the last year there has probably been an overall decrease in total jobs.
At the same time we are going through a period of general slackness and uncertainty in trade which is particularly hitting the traditional industries; and so it is no wonder that we find ourselves with 100,000 people looking for jobs. This is no surprise to us in Scotland, and in particular to those of us who work with the Scottish Council (Development and Industry). It is a fact that has lain behind much of our thinking and policies for the last fifteen years. It was our increased concern at the outlook that led us, three and a half years ago, to set up the Committee of Inquiry into the Scottish Economy. After two years of intensive research and study the Toothill Report, as it is now familiarly known, came out unequivocally in support of the need for a positive policy of encouragement of regional growth—encouragement of the industries with prospects of growth in the places that were favourable to their growth, instead of merely tinkering with the problem of unemployment as and when it appeared. It is now over a year since that Report was published, and it is interesting to see how widely it has since been acclaimed, even if not yet in the innermost places of the Treasury and the Board of Trade. But we take hope from the signs we have lately seen that something of the kind is under close consideration at this time by N.E.D.C.
It is sometimes said that Scottish conditions are not favourable for these growth industries. It is encouraging to

25
be able to give the lie to that propaganda, because our researches show that over a recent period, taking, I think, the 29 most rapidly growing British industries, these showed as high a percentage rate of growth in Scotland as in Britain as a whole; and some of them, notably office machinery, radio and electronics, show a considerably higher rate of growth. That is highly encouraging, and it is something that we must make more widely known. We must break down the resistance of so many industrialists to moving out of the cosy proximity to mass markets, to suppliers, to Government Departments—indeed to the whole London complex—into what to them is wild, unknown and uncomfortable territory. We must dispel ignorance and at the same time compensate for the real obstacles and disadvantages which we realise do exist in the process of moving and setting up in a new locality. Therefore I sincerely believe that industrialists have every chance of expansion and success, as proved by the record of those that have already come.
I am glad to see that we are hearing less to-day from those who advocate a policy of complete laissez-faire, who believe that the workers should move to the work, wherever the employer in his wisdom decides that that should be. Nobody wants an employer to set up where it is clearly uneconomic for him to do so. But what about the social and other costs of increasing industrial congestion in the South; the cost of housing, of roads and of services, the pressure of demand forcing up both land prices and wage rates, with the resulting burden of extra expense which may not be apparent to the individual employer, but which inexorably come home to roost in higher costs and taxes? Nor can we fail to ignore the effect on our lives in the social and amenity fields—the surroundings in which we live, the conditions in which we work, and one stresses and strains of travelling between the two.
Some of your Lordships may have seen a letter in The Times last week from the chairman of one of our leading national building societies, and though he is referring principally to the problem of encroachment on the green belt area of London, his words are true in a wider context. What he says is:
26
"There is urgent need to move the magnet of employment to new fields away from the present large cities, so that families can live and grow up away from the depressing restrictions of megalopolitan Britain."
Two months ago, as your Lordships will recollect, on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, we debated most thoroughly this question of distribution of industry and population, and there was universal agreement on the need to check the drift to the South. I will not attempt to go over that ground again. It cannot be in the interests, economic or social, of the North or the South that in the last ten years 88,000 more people have moved out of Scotland than into it—half of those 88,000 in the last three years. And if we are
to achieve the increase in national production which we have set ourselves, of 4 per cent. a year, it is as clear as daylight, first, that it cannot be done so long as large parts of our resources are under-employed, as they are in Scotland and the North-East to-day; and second, that it is neither desirable nor indeed physically possible to achieve it by speeding still further the shift of population from North to South.
What then can be done to check this trend and to boost our rate of industrial growth in Scotland to the point where its own momentum will carry it on? First, we must have confidence in our ability to help ourselves. But to those who say that self-help is what we lack, we must reply, with all the force at our command, that no part of Great Britain has done so much for itself to diagnose its own economic problems and to put them right: as witness the fact that of all the new jobs created in Scotland in recent years 80 per cent., or four-fifths, have been in native Scottish concerns and not in relation to those coming in from outside. But in a world in which, for better or worse, Government is so closely involved in every aspect of our affairs, we seek an equal effort on their part. Their principal means of creating industry are the stick of the industrial development certificate and the carrot of the Local Employment Act. We in no way belittle what has been achieved by them and by the industrial estates, the new towns and in other ways. But I believe they have nearly reached the limit of the power of the stick. If you go on beating a donkey it becomes obstinate and sulky, and that is what some be-laboured industrialists have done. At a

27
time of stagnant trade they have decided to do nothing rather than move at all.
If we are going to attract the new industries we need, and to help our own ones to grow, we must have a bigger and a juicier carrot. The scale of grants and loans must be increased, and they must be offered with an open hand. What may be enough in boom times is just not sufficient to-day to offset the real costs and difficulties of setting up new, highly capitalised operations as well as giving some real inducement to move. Much has been made of an average figure of £1,400 of Government aid for every job created with it in Scotland, but this takes no account of the fact that much of it is in the form of factories let for rent and of loans bearing interest and due to be repaid. On our calculations the amount of actual subsidy per job is more like £200, which is roughly the same as the cost of one unemployed man's benefit for a year. For the first two years of the Act's operation, expenditure on Scottish projects—or investment, which I calculate it really is, as to some six-sevenths of it—averaged £22 million a year. If that were doubled, which I think it should be at least, it would be a small price to pay for a prosperous Scotland, and a flea-bite compared with some of our spending on more passing things.
Then, my Lords, we must, if the industrialists will forgive the analogy, let the donkey see the carrot. It is no use hiding it in your pocket. As we have said time and again, we must be able to "sell" the benefits of the Act to potential customers. Just now we cannot tell them; we can only say, "You must argue your case with the Board of Trade Committee". Of course all cases will not be the same, but at least let us have some standard minimum figures, and let aid be granted wherever the potential exists for growth, and not be cut off as soon as unemployment in a particular place declines. In this field firmness and continuity of policy are essential.
One of our greatest attractions for industry is our supply of labour—probably 120,000 people over the next eight years. That is not only a challenge but, I believe, a great opportunity. What we lack, however, are the skills required by the new and developing industries of
28
the future, and we must ask the Government to help us tackle the retraining of these men and women on a vastly greater scale than at present. But if industry is to grow on the scale required, it will need other things, too, in the form of adequate services and amenities. Now is the time to, push on vigorously with housing, schools, roads, water and power supplies, and with removing some of the scars of our industrial past. What a chance to help our immediate employment problem while at the same time laying the foundations for our future strength! Communications are our lifeblood, and, apart from hastening on with the programme of roads, there are vital works waiting to be tackled in the way of bridges, docks and airfield improvements.
The State-owned corporations play a particularly vital part in the Scottish economy, both as suppliers of services and as employers of labour. There are parts of Scotland where roads cannot take the place of rail, as the recent weather has dramatically shown—not that rail by itself has been able to cope in all these circumstances. Air services are becoming progressively more important the further we are from the centre of things, particularly to those engaged in the operation and technology of our newer industries. Yet, despite the importance of these corporations, we are under the uncertainty of the poised axe of Dr. Beeching; and we have now heard that the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Kirtleside, is seeking £1 million a year from the Government as the price of providing us with what we consider are adequate and essential air services. The events of the past week have given an added urgency to the need for a speedy start on plans for yet another great steam-generated power station in Scotland. This could run for its foreseeable life on the coal beneath our soil and, in the process, give jobs to 10,000 miners. Yet there is grave fear that it may be undercut in price by oil, despite the uncertainties for that inducement of future international events. Granted that all these State-owned industries must do their best to pay their way, nevertheless the Government have a duty, through them, to see that our essential needs, both economic and social, are met.
The Government should set a better example, too, to private enterprise in

29
trying to site more of its offices and research and other institutions in Scotland, and in giving Scottish concerns every chance to share in contracts of all kinds, particularly in the scientific and technical fields. My friends in these industries tell me how much time they have to spend in travelling and sitting on the doorsteps in Whitehall and its environs if they are to stand a chance of securing these contracts.
Finally, there is the broad effect on Scotland of economic and financial policy for the regulation of the British economy as a whole. There is no doubt that general prosperity is in Scotland's interest, but equally we are the last to benefit from it when it arrives and the first to suffer when it departs. I believe the time has come when we must differentiate in our fiscal measures between the more and the less prosperous parts of the country—whether by varying investment allowances for capital expenditure, or even by lowering tax rates for new industrial developments. I know that the Treasury will throw up their hands in horror, ostensibly at the idea of partiality as between one taxpayer and another; I know that it would mean work to devise and administer such a scheme; but I am quite certain that, with a will, it could be clone, and it would involve no more discrimination in the geographical sense than exists already between individuals in their personal circumstances. Relate it, if you like, to export performance, and say to any firm that, if they set up in a development district, they can have so many years free of profits tax on their export business. I believe that in that way the industries we are seeking would flock to our doorstep.
I have tried to set out briefly the principal measures which we believe are needed from the Government if they are to match our own efforts in Scotland to work, out our salvation. They are no hasty thoughts; they are the result of years of study and experience by those closest to the problem. What we seek is not charity, nor, support for an economy in decline. It is an investment in Scotland's future which will bring a good return. Much of our industry, our agriculture, our whole life is in good heart and holds high promise for the future. Our problems arise because we are in transition from a nineteenth cen-
30
tury to a twenty-first century economy, a transition that is bound to cause stresses and strains. If we are to win through to the promised land beyond, we must have a bold and vigorous policy for growth—a policy whose cost would be small in national terms.
My Lords, I realise that we cannot expect either of the noble Lards who have to reply to-day to; announce such a major decision. The N.E.D.C. are debating this subject to-morrow, and within a few weeks the Scottish Council are to have a meeting with the Prime Minister on the subject of growth. But the time for talk and deliberation is past. We expect action before it is too late. There must be no question, for example, of waiting for the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, to make a fresh appreciation of the problem there is, indeed, no need. With the exception of local problems and differences, the study, the diagnosis, has all been done, and has been done in Scotland by those in closest contact with the problems to be solved. It has truly been said that nothing worth while can be achieved without three things: vision to see, faith to believe and courage to do. These qualities have not been lacking in Scotland. We look for them equally in the Government responsible for our affairs, and we look for them soon. If they are forthcoming we shall achieve our desire, which is to play our full part in the progress and prosperity of the nation to which we all belong. I beg to move for Papers.

NATIONAL INSURANCE AND WAR PENSIONS
3.41 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, before we proceed with the debate I think it would be for your Lordships' convenience if, before I intervene in the debate myself, I were to read the statement which is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, on National Insurance and war pensions.
My right honourable friend is to-day presenting a Bill to increase benefits and contributions under the National Insurance and Industrial Injuries schemes. The Bill will be available in the Printed Paper

31
Office this afternoon together with an explanatory White Paper and a report by the Government Actuary.
It is proposed that the standard National Insurance rates of
unemployment and sickness benefit and flat-rate retirement pensions should be increased by 10s. a week for a single person from 57s. 6d. to 67s. 6d. and by 16s. 6d. for a married couple from 92s. 6d. to £5 9s. Allowances for children will be increased by 2s. 6d. a week. That, of course, is separate from the family allowances. These increases mean that the rate for a man and wife with three children will be £8 11s. including family allowances. The family allowances are not affected by this rate. The standard rate of widow's pension will also be raised to 67s. 6d. a week. The widowed mother will have her personal benefit increased to 67s. 6d. a week and the allowance for each of her children will be raised by 5s., thus providing allowances of 30s. a week for the first child and of 22s. in addition to family allowances for each other child. In other words the preference which in recent years the Government have accorded widowed mothers as a class is being extended.
The Bill also provides that a widowed mother in work will always keep at least 26s. of her personal benefit under the earnings rule. This amount will be the difference between benefit for a single person and that for a dependent wife. Taken together with the regulations which my right honourable friend has submitted to the National Insurance Advisory Committee for raising the earnings limits for widowed mothers from £5 to £6, this represents a substantial improvement for widowed mothers in work.
Under the Industrial Injuries Scheme the standard rate of injury benefit and of the 100 per cent. disablement pension will be increased from 97s. 6d. to £5 15s. a week. The supplementary allowances will also be increased, and the widow's pension of 64s. will become 75s. a week.
As your Lordships know, the raising of pensions is a complex business, but I hope that the new rates will operate from the week beginning the 27th of May. If the Bill is passed into law by the end of February, as I hope with your Lordships' co-operation it will be, it is
32
the Government's aim exceptionally to bring in the new higher rates of unemployment and sickness benefit together with injury benefit as from the 7th of March.
The extra cost in the first full year of the higher rates of pensions and benefits will add about £212 million to expenditure from the two Insurance Funds. In contributory schemes improved benefits involve increased contributions. The minimum total contribution paid by the employed man will be increased from 10s. 7d. to 11s. 8d., and that paid by his employer from 8s. 7d. to 9s. 8d. As to the graduated part of the scheme, the maximum earnings on which contributions are charged will be raised from the present £15 to £18 a week, and the man earning £18 a week or more in the graduated scheme will pay 19s. 4d. a week in all as compared with 15s. 8d. at present, and the employer 17s. 4d. as compared with 13s. 8d. The extra graduated contributions will count for extra graduated pension. The total contribution for the employed man contracted out of the graduated scheme will go up from 12s. 2d. to 14s. 1d. and that for his employer from 9s. 10d. to 12s. 1d. There will be corresponding increases in other contribution rates. The contribution changes will operate from the beginning of June.
As regards National Assistance, although the rates were raised as recently as last September, I am glad to be able to tell the House that the National Assistance Board intend to make proposals for some further increase in them to come into effect at the end of May, at the same time as the increases in National Insurance pensions, so as to improve again the standard of living of the poorest members of the community.
Meantime the Bill my right honourable friend is presenting today includes a temporary provision which will have the effect of ensuring that a person whose unemployment or sickness benefit is supplemented by National Assistance will not get less advantage from the benefit increase in March, than he would if the Board's proposals were in operation at the time.
So much for the Bill. Now war pensions, which are a matter for the Royal Warrants. Increases will be made in the basic rate of pension for 100 per cent.

33
disablement from 97s. 6d. to £5 15s. The standard rate of pension for war widows will be raised from 76s. to 90s., with appropriate increases in the rates for their children. There will also be increases in the allowances for constant attendance, unemployability and lowered standard of occupation and in the maximum rent allowance payable to war widows with children. I will circulate

PRINCIPAL CHANGES IN WAR PENSIONS

Present rate

Proposed rate

Disablement pensions (100 per cent, assessment):—

ex-private or equivalent

97s. 6d. a week

115s. a week

ex-non-commissioned officers

Increase of 17s. 6d. a week

ex-officers

Increase of £46 a year

ex-regular officers—disablement addition

Increase of £46 a year

The amounts of weekly allowances and terminal gratuities for assessments of less than 20 per cent, will also be increased proportionately.

Constant attendance allowance

20s. a week

25s. a week

30s. a week

37s. 6d. a week

Normal maximum

40s. a week

50s. a week

60s. a week

75s. a week

Exceptional maximum

80s. a week

100s. a week

Unemployability supplement

63s. a week

74s. a week

The allowances payable with this supplement (and with treatment allowances) will also be increased:—

Allowance for wife or other adult dependant

35s. a week

41s. 6d. a week

Allowance for first child

17s. 6d. a week

20s. a week

Allowance for other children

9s. 6d. a week

12s. a week

Allowance for lowered standard of occupation

Up to 39s. a week

Up to 46s. a week

Widows pensions:—

Widows of ex-privates or equivalent

76s. a week

90s. a week

Widows of ex-non-commissioned officers

Increase of 14s. a week

Widows of ex-officers

Increase of £37 a year

Allowance for each child:—

Other ranks

29s. a week

34s. a week

Officers

£83 10s. a year

£96 10s. a year

Rent allowance for widows with children

Up to 29s. a week

Up to 34s. a week

Pensions for unmarried dependants who lived as wives of men now deceased:—

Other ranks

68s. 6d. a week

82s. 6d. a week

Officers

£203 a year

£240 a year

Orphans' pensions:—

Other ranks:—

Under 15 years

34s. 6d. a week

40s. 6d. a week

15 years or over

46s. a week

54s. a week

Officers:—

Up to 18 years

£128 10s. a year

£149 10s. a year

Adult orphan incapable of self-support

57s. 6d. a week

67s. 6d. a week

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure the House is indebted to the noble Earl for the statement, and for the manner in which it has been made. No one who has been studying the conditions of people who are necessarily receiving unemployment, sick benefit, and the like, will think that the proposed increases for these people are not specially needed at the present time—they certainly are. We on this side of the House think that some of these improvements are belated.
a list of all the principal changes in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The main new rates will come into operation in the week beginning the 27th of May. The additional cost to the Exchequer on war pensions will be £15 million in the first full year.
Following is the list of changes referred to:
They have all been urged upon Her Majesty's Government, especially by my Party in another place, for a considerable time back, and from the statement there will still, it seems, be some delay in putting this obviously and necessarily complicated scheme into operation at a very early date. However, in view of the very serious days through which we have been going, and with the various economic measures which have been proposed, like the pay pause, the failure of the pay pause, and similar arguments which have

35
been before the House from time to time, this proposal will require very careful study.
The noble Earl was good enough to make clear what is the estimated cost to the two Insurance Funds dealing with that side of the matters contained in the statement, and he said that it is going to cost them over £200 million. But we did not get an estimate—I daresay he will be able to tell me whether we can find it in the White Paper or the Bill—of what will be the total yield in the first year, say, of the increased contributions by the workers, on the one hand and, on the other hand, by the employers; and whether in fact the actual increases of benefit are going to amount to less or to more than the increases in the contributions in those two directions. We must get information like this if we can, because I should say that in some industries, at any rate—and I daresay that noble Lords in the House with employing experience would know—these rates of increased contribution, especially at some of the higher levels, will probably more than wipe out the very arguable rates of increase in wages which have been given in the last twelve months. If the noble Earl would help me in that direction I should be much obliged.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am greatly obliged to the noble Viscount for his observations. I hope we shall have an opportunity of discussing this subject with fuller knowledge at an early date. I think the noble Viscount will find all the detailed information he alluded to in either the White Paper or the Report of the Government Actuary, which will be in the Printed Paper Office this afternoon. I am sure your Lordships would like to have the opportunity of digesting these figures before we discuss them. And may I take the opportunity of congratulating the noble Viscount on his promotion to an Earldom?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am much obliged to the noble Earl. May I take it, then, that we shall be certain to discover, either from the Bill itself or the Financial Resolution, of which we shall obviously get a copy, whether this new announcement will involve an actual increased charge on the general taxpayer?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I do not know whether that will be specifically in the Bill, but it will certainly be plain from the White Paper and the Report of the Government Actuary.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, of course both sides of the House will welcome this announcement by the Government, and the Opposition will feel considerable satisfaction that the Government have done as they have frequently been requested to do. In this short time, it is a little difficult to analyse these figures, but does the noble Earl realise that what his announcement means, in fact, is that we are increasing the allowance in respect of children by 4½d. a day, and that we are increasing the flat rate to the unemployed and the sick by 1s. 6d. a day? Although he says that this, with all the other increases, will mean that an unemployed man with a wife and three children will have £8 and a certain number of shillings, do not let us forget that from that the rent has to be subtracted before these five people are fed and clothed and the rooms are heated. I think it would not be wrong to assume that the rent might easily be £2 or £3 a week, so let us subtract the £2 or £3 a week from the £8. We then find that there is something approximating £5 on which these people have to live—five people in this weather, in the winter months, with the extra demand for fuel and the extra demand for food. And let us bear in mind that this subsistence level—and it can only be a subsistence level—does not allow for any savings. When these men are in work, they are able to save and thereby, of course, replace necessities in the household. There can be no savings if there is only £5 or £6 a week on which to feed a family. Therefore, the position deteriorates—and that is why I attach so much importance to increases.
The other point I have to make before the Bill comes before us is this: why, oh, why, do we not abolish the earnings rule, if only for widowed mothers? Every noble Lord here will agree with me that women are wanted for domestic work, they are wanted as auxiliaries in hospitals, and they are wanted to care for the old folk or whoever it may be. In these days, those who in the past may have considered themselves privileged and able to get this help find it

37
is denied them. And still we penalise the widowed mother, of all people. We are told the rate has gone up to £6. In a hospital, working full-time, she could earn more than that, and she would be enabled, of course, to pay to have her children cared for. But we still allow these women to limit their earnings, although the need for their work and for an extra pair of hands in households throughout the country is desperate. I do wish the noble Earl would answer that question first, and then tell me why the increase in respect of the children of 4½.d. a day is so niggardly.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, may I ask which subject we are debating this afternoon?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I was going to mention, with respect to the noble Baroness, that it is not usual to debate a statement of this kind. Your Lordships generally prefer to have one or two supplementary questions; and I am sure that at an early date we shall have an opportunity of debating this subject as fully as any of your Lordships wish. I do not think your Lordships would wish me to prolong it into anything in the nature of a debate.

THE SCOTTISH ECONOMY AND INDUSTRY
3.58 p.m.
Debate resumed.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am sorry to have made such a long interruption in your Lordships' debate, such a very long statement, but we can now return to the Motion which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Polwarth. I should like to begin by firmly contradicting the rumour that the Foreign Office has briefed me to speak in this debate in the belief that Scotland is a foreign country. No such comfortable delusion is ever entertained by any of my officials.
My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House regrets that Ms absence in the United States makes it impossible for him to be (here and to speak himself as Leader of the House for the Government in this debate, which he regards
38
as one of major importance, and he has therefore asked me to intervene in his place at an early stage in the debate. Although, as a member of the Government, I have no departmental connection with the Scottish Office, I am glad to remember that a few months before I joined the Government in June, 1958, I introduced a Resolution about unemployment in Scotland on which the discussion was probably mot unlike that Which we may expect from your Lordships this afternoon; and I am glad to see that seven or eight of your Lordships who were kind enough to help me by speaking on my Motion at that time are speaking again on this one to-day, including my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, who replied on behalf of the Government.
I was particularly grateful on that occasion for the support of my noble friend Lord Polwarth, who made a contribution to that debate not dissimilar in content and in ideas from that Which he has so ably delivered to your Lord-ships this afternoon. The views of my noble friend on these subjects are given very great weight by hits work over a period of years as Chairman of the Scottish Council, and we are always glad to hear his views which he expresses far too infrequently in Parliament. My noble friend has argued to-day, forcefully and reasonably, that in order to hasten the transition from what he called a 19th century to a 21st century economy in Scotland, we ought to have a vigorous policy for growth combining special inducements to new industries with a more rapid programme of expenditure on power and transport, on housing and on schools—not as a temporary palliative for unemployment, to be abandoned as soon as the figures go down, but as a permanent aid to economic growth. And I am glad, since that is cleanly a very long-term policy, that my noble friend had the vision to go forward to the 21st century; although many of us, or at least some of us here now, will never see it. But the 38 years which separate us from it are only a short hour in the life of our country.
I am particularly grateful that my noble friend did not disparage the progress which has been made under the Local Employment Act. At the present moment it is rather fashionable among

39
same people in Scotland to decry the benefits conferred by the Local Employment Act because it has not solved our industrial problem in 2¾ years; and in 1962 it has not at all kept pace with the loss of employment Which we suffered in that year. I remember that in the earlier debate in 1958 to which the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, referred he used one simile which I thought was particularly apt: he compared Scotland to a person going up the down escalator of a moving staircase. He was going up the stairs and they were moving down against him, and he mare or less stayed in the same place. In 1962 the down escalator has been going down faster than we have been going up, and, in terms of unemployment figures, we are worse off than we were at the beginning of last year.
But the fact is that the Local Employment Act has brought a very substantial number of jobs to Scotland and a very valuable degree of diversity into our industries. This £41 million which has been spent in that short time (whether it has been provided by way of loan which has to be repaid or by way of grant which is not repaid) has all been used to build factories which would not have been built or extended if it had not been for the Act, and to provide 32,500 new jobs which would not otherwise have been there. That, I think, in less than three years is a large and a substantial achievement.
Of course, it is not enough and we must try to make our policy more fruitful in every way we can. I do not believe myself that in the immediate future, perhaps not in the foreseeable future, we can get on without a very tough policy of refusing industrial development certificates to an industry which seeks to expand in an area of high employment or in one of the great conurbations which it is socially desirable to restrict, if it is reasonably possible that the extension could take place in Scotland or in North-East England instead. I know there are some firms who will refuse to expand at all rather than go elsewhere, and this is more likely to happen at a time when the trade of the country or of the world is relatively slack and when the need for more industries in the development areas is therefore more obvious than usual. When trade becomes more active, then
40
more firms will be willing either to move or establish branches in Scotland; although in these circumstances, of course, the need for more employment will not be so pressing as it was before. That is one reason why we must continue this policy all the time, whether unemployment figures are better or worse.
As for the improved inducements for which my noble friend has asked, the "more juicy carrot" as he described it, the Government will certainly consider whether we can make our inducements better known and more effective than they are at the present time. Our aim is to reduce the imbalance of industry in Scotland. We want to help the older industries, most of whom have a very bright future before them, possibly with a smaller labour force and possibly concentrating on a more specialised type of production, such as has been our aim in dealing with cotton and textiles. We want to help these industries and bring new industries into any part of Scotland, though principally in those parts prepared to receive them.
While it would be quite wrong to pretend that one can do all this in two or three years we should certainly like progress to be quicker than it is now. Together with the ordinary procedure of the Local Employment Act there are certain kinds of Government expenditure on aid to new industries which are supplementary or ancillary to it although they do not proceed from it. Looking through Lord Polwarth's speech 4½ years ago, I find one of his most pressing demands was that a strip mill should be sited in Scotland, and not long afterwards the Government did undertake to finance the two Colville strip mills at Gartcosh and Ravenscraig, in North Lanark. There is no doubt, in my view, that this was one of the facts which induced the British Motor Corporation and Roote's to go to Bathgate and Linwood. All I am going to say about the strip mill now is that although it is most valuable on account of the direct employment which it provides to its own workers, its main value to our economy will be the attraction which it will give to the growth of other industries in Scotland; and this, of course, was the chief consideration which induced the Government to finance it.
My noble friend at that time also asked about advance factories—factories

41
which are built by the Board of Trade before they know who is going to occupy them. Noble Lords will know the history of these factories. After the war when it was very difficult to get a building licence and when it took an interminable time to get factories built any advance factories built by the Board of Trade were readily snapped up. Applicants were tumbling over each other to get them, because they wanted to take advantage of the sellers' market which then existed to restart their industries. Later on, when the sellers' market disappeared and building became easier, most firms preferred a factory built especially to their own measurements for their own requirements rather than a standard one, to which they had to adapt themselves. I have always thought, and have said so several times in your Lordships' House, that both kinds should be built, and that is what is being done now. Of course, we must have a flexible policy, having regard to the amount of demand which there is likely to be for these factories.
During last year, eleven new advance factories had been announced by the Board of Trade. The first, at the Royal Naval Air Force base at Donibristle, should be ready for occupation in June of this year. Then, in July, six more were announced for construction in Lanarkshire, Fife, Ayrshire, Dumfriesshire and Wigtownshire, which ought to be completed by the end of this year. And last November, four others were announced, slightly larger ones, in Glasgow, West Lothian, Dunbartonshire and Lanarkshire, which ought to be ready early next year.
The total area of these buildings adds up to 350,000 square feet. Since I happened to see on television the other night a speaker who declared that they would employ only 200 men, I think I ought to state that, on the basis of the average number of square feet per man, they are more likely to employ between 1,500 and 2,000. This is all in addition to the normal building ordered by firms availing themselves of the Local Employment Act. It is a comparatively small item, which we must consider together with other measures, in order to get a proper picture of the whole.
Together with the introduction of new industries, which is our main objective,
42
we must also consider power programmes, transport programmes and house-building programmes, which are needed for an expanding and a balanced economy. Your Lordships will have seen from the White Paper last November on public investment, that public investment in Scotland is expected to increase from £140 million last year to £162 million this year. A great part of that expenditure is on the electricity industry, whose chief problem in Scotland is to keep pace with the increasing demand for its product. More than 1,000 new or enlarged switching stations are needed every year, and about £50 million a year will now be invested by the Scottish Electricity Boards to meet an expansion in demand which is hound to increase proportionately with the success of our industrial policy.
Another matter, which is vital to our economic development in Scotland, is good roads; and road building is increasing every year. In the five years from 1956 to 1961, £28 million was spent on major, trunk and classified roads. In the next five years from now, from 1953 to 1968, it will be £71 million—that is, two and a half times as much as it was in the last five. By 1970 we shall have in Scotland a system of dual carriageways, linking all the main centres, from Dundee to Perth through the main industrial areas of Glasgow, Stirling, Fife and Edinburgh, with the South. In building these roads and transport facilities we want not only to increase the internal trade and commerce in Scotland itself, but also to facilitate the sending of products to the larger markets in the Midlands and the South of England.
The slowest feature of Scottish economy, all through our lives, has been housing. This has always been an intractable problem. When I was at the Scottish Office before the war it was then our first preoccupation. In 1938, I remember, we built what was then a record number of 26,000 houses, in spite of a miserably poor performance by the city of Glasgow, and it seemed possible, if we could get Glasgow in line with the other authorities and at the same time make full use of the Scottish Housing Association, which had just been planned and instituted by Walter Elliot and was carried on by John Colville, we might break the back of the problem in ten years; but instead of that we had six years' war, which set us back a terribly

43
long way. No building was done, and so little could be spent on repairs that the retrogression of houses towards being slums was tremendously accelerated.
Since the war, supplies of building labour and materials have enabled us to make only rather slow progress. Even if there were never any unemployment in the building trade, as there is now—and, of course, the Secretary of State intends to do everything he can to take up the slack in the building trade by encouraging works which can be advanced to be advanced, particularly by local authorities—and if our resources were used in the most efficient possible way, progress would still be slower than all of us would like. But some progress has taken place. We expect to have 35,000 houses under construction this year, compared with 31,000 last year. And the growth of our New Towns, although likewise slow, is, I think, considerable, and sometimes, I would say, impressive in its results.
The oldest of them is East Kilbride, which is already half-way towards its target population. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Cones-ford is still here, but it is described by the Department as a target population—that means, a desired population—of 70,000. The economic significance of East Kilbride is shown not only by the fact that it attracts major new industrial units—the most notable of the new ones in 1962 were the factories now under construction for Satchwell Controls, employing 700 people, and for Standard Telephones and Cables, employing 800—but also by the large variety of other firms which have rented smaller standard factories. There are now 40 of these smaller factories in occupation for purposes which are very wide and varied.
The total factory area in this New Town now exceeds 2 million square feet, with a further 300,000 under construction. When it is all finished, the number employed in manufacturing industry alone will be over 9,000. And on the side of pure research, the National Engineering Laboratory, which was established at East Kilbride in 1954, has added 58,000 square feet to its space. Here is being built the research reactor for the use of the Scottish uni-
44
versities, mainly as part of their nuclear power engineering courses.
This represents in one locality an intensity of activity and employment which is much more familiar in the Midlands and the South of England, and which in Scotland we hope in time to achieve in our other New Towns and expanding areas. The newest one of the four is Livingstone, which was designated only last April. This new development area will occupy a situation of central importance in the economic development of Scotland. It will be placed alongside the main road from Glasgow to Edinburgh, which is to be reconstructed as a fast traffic road, and it is near the approaches to the Forth Road bridge. It is in the centre of an area of the greatest economic potential which has already proved its possibilities by the attraction of the British Motor Corporation factory at Bathgate; and this development is now to be associated with the major project for rehabilitation and progress of the surrounding countryside.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State, the New Town Development Corporation and the County Councils of the two areas, Mid and West Lothian, have commissioned a development scheme for over 80 square miles surrounding the New Town. This will show how the potential of the area can best be realised and how the incidence and timing of the large expenditure already committed in this area should be adjusted to produce the maximum return in the shortest possible time. So, from this scheme, we hope to learn a great deal about techniques for stimulating economic growths, and these lessons will be applied wherever opportunities exist.
My Lords, I have seen some questions in the Press comparing the plants for Scotland with those for North-East England which are to be organised by my noble friend Lord Hailsham, and wondering how the position in Scotland will compare with that in England: because the Government have made it clear that there are now two areas which they consider demand particular attention—namely, Scotland and North-East England. My noble friend Lord Hail-sham's job is technical in character. As regards Scotland, the Secretary of

45
State, of course, already has Cabinet responsibilities of a similar kind, and executive responsibility for roads, housing, electrical power supplies and town and country planning which have a big part to play in reconstructing the Scottish economy.
One of the recommendations of the Toothill Report to which my noble friend referred was that there should be a new Department in the Scottish Office. The Scottish Development Department was set up last year to co-ordinate all these activities, and it is now intended to bring into this Department officials from other Ministries, who may be concerned but who are normally not under the authority of the Secretary of State, such as the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Trade. This inter-departmental group of officials to plan the economic and physical progress—which it is the duty of the Secretary of State to further—will include, in addition to the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Power, the Ministry of Public Building and Works, who are concerned with resources, building and civil engineering industries in Scotland and on whom so much will depend, and the Ministry of Aviation, because of their role in relation to air service's, and the Ministry of Transport who still control railways, though not roads, in Scotland. This group will operate in Edinburgh and will be serviced by a combined administrative and technical staff provided from the resources of the Scottish Office; and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, with the help of my noble friend the Minister of State, will exercise direct oversight over the work of the group.
All these developments in housing, power and transport, which we must seek to accelerate year by year to the limits of our resources in materials and labour, are not merely aids for or stimulants to industrial expansion but are essential prerequisites of it. I put it to your Lordships that the present period of slackness in the economy is a challenge to our country, and in some respects, perhaps, an opportunity, too. The main task of all these numerous Departments for which the Secretary of State is responsible is to make the present pause in expansion into an opportunity, with the co-operation, of course, of
46
industrialists and public opinion, to make sure that we shall have in Scotland, both in the Highlands and in the Lowlands, a good basis, properly equipped with the right services which will be attractive to industry, into which now industrial growth will easily fit and from which it can expand still further, to the permanent advantage of the Scottish economy.
4.27 p.m.
LORD TODD: My Lords, I rise to address your Lordships to-day with perhaps more than the usual trepidation. For one thing, this is the first occasion on which I have ventured to address your Lordships, and in that connection I must crave your patience and indulgence. Secondly, I fear that I cannot hope to match the dazzling array of statistics that has just been put before us by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee; and thirdly, I am not an economist, and I fear, therefore, that my views on economic matters may be of somewhat doubtful value, and certainly of a good deal less value than those of many of your Lordships. But I am naturally interested in the welfare of my native land, and I am concerned at the obvious industrial decline that has taken place there during this century.
The first thing one asks, I think, is why this decline should have occurred at all. Here I should like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, and go a little into history, because I believe that the main reasons for the decline in the Scottish economy are to be found in the nature of Scottish industrial development in the nineteenth century and in emigration, two things which I hope to show are intimately connected. Scotland, as the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, said, was very early to the fore in the Industrial Revolution; indeed, I would remind your Lordships that technical education, as we know it in this country, was virtually born there. As early as 1796 Anderson's University, the forerunner of the great Glasgow College of Science and Technology, was founded in Glasgow, as it was then said,
"for the good of mankind and the improvement of science."
Three years after that George Birkbeck, who later founded the College which bears his name in Landon, became a professor at Anderson's University, and he

47
ran a course on "Mechanical and Chemical Philosophy" which was open to the public. He had to run that course in the Trades Hall in Glasgow because he had an audience of 700 people, which is a somewhat remarkable thing when you remember that at that time the population of Glasgow was only 70,000 souls.
I mention these facts to indicate the avidity with which the Scots took to the new technical knowledge of these days; because this was, in fact, the basis for the development of technically based industry in Scotland which led to a period of great prosperity in the country later in the nineteenth century. But I think that Scotland, in certain respects at least, suffered from her early industrialisation, because, since the main natural resources were coal, iron and oil shale, her economy became too narrowly based. It was associated mainly with the development of heavy industries, such as steel, heavy engineering and shipbuilding. And then, later on, with the depletion of readily accessible sources of power, raw materials and chemical industry, one found that mining, for example, became less important, from the point of view of employment at least, than it had been in the past.
Now, of course, the world still needs steel, ships and heavy machinery. But the competition for the supply of these is a great deal fiercer in the world to-day than it was in the heyday of Scottish industry. The plain fact is that you cannot stay competitive in industries like that unless you continuously and vigorously apply the results of scientific research to the development of your industry—in other words, there must be continued research and development in the pursuit of new products and new processes. I am afraid that a great deal more is needed in these industries than we have seen in the recent past, because these industries which I have mentioned have, in plain truth, a rather poor record in the matter of research and development, as they have also in the matter of training schemes for their employees. I do not claim that the picture is entirely black: there are some bright spats, and there are, I believe, the beginnings of a general change. But, broadly, this lack of progressiveness has been, I believe, the main trouble.
48
When one thinks back to the vigour of Scottish industry in the last century, one wonders why this decline should have occurred, and why, once it showed signs of appearing, new science-based industries were not found developing alongside the older ones. It is a very complex thing to disentangle a matter like this, but a purely personal view of mine is that a good deal of the trouble has been due to the slow passage, in the latter part of the last century, of the control and direction of industry from technical to financial hands: because the entrepreneurs who founded and built up the Scottish industries were technical men, and the decline has come since they passed away and their position in control has been taken by others. Accountants are pretty good at keeping books, but accountants alone cannot hope to direct the policy of a modern industrial undertaking.
The decline that has set in there has, of course, accelerated emigration, and it is emigration that is really the reason why new industries did not readily develop alongside the older ones in Scotland: it is not simply that Scotland herself was unable to produce people of sufficient vigour and intelligence to maintain her economy. The fact is that emigration from Scotland has been on an absolutely staggering scale. I am told that between 1900 and 1950 something over 1,100,000 people emigrated from Scotland, whereas during the same period England and Wales, with about eight times the population, lost just about half that number—in round figures, about 550,000. According to the latest figures I have, which relate to 1957, this process of emigration was still going on at about 24,000 a year. although the average natural population increase of the country was only 33,000.
On the side of science and technology, which is one that interests me, I would remind your Lordships that at the present time (or, rather, using the 1961 figures of the University Grants Committee) Scotland is producing about 11 per cent. of all the graduates in science and technology in this kingdom. A few years ago it was producing a good deal more than that—very nearly 20 per cent. Yet in a survey which was made seven years ago by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research it was found that, of the people doing research

49
and development in industry in this country, only about 2·7 per cent. were employed in Scotland. To my mind it is no use our priding ourselves as Scotsmen on the magnificent contribution of Scots abroad, and it is no use talking about the historic rôle of Scotland in providing these emigrants. After all, she has not provided them in that number for such a very long time. The plain fact is that no country can stand a loss of its trained manpower at the rate Scotland has been losing it, and hope to maintain a sound economy.
I think that emigration, on top of declining industry, has been the major feature of what we have seen happening in Scotland. It is no use simply pleading for a decrease in emigration. People emigrate because of lack of opportunity at home, or because they see better opportunities elsewhere, and nothing will stop emigration except the provision of opportunity. So we come up against the essence of this problem: how to stop the decline in industry and the increase in emigration.
I said at the outset that I am no economist, but I should like to make just one or two observations here. In the first place, we must recognise that this is not a short-term problem with which we are dealing, though of course it has short-term aspects. There are problems such as temporary unemployment, and so on, which are very serious and must be dealt with; but solutions in solving the short term can be only palliatives and will not work in the long term. It is no use propping up an industry which has no future; in the end this will help nobody. Equally, I do not believe that, in the long run, bringing new industries into Scotland will solve anything unless these industries carry out on the spot research and development. You will not solve your problem simply by putting in production units or assembly units owned by firms the focus of whose research and development is located elsewhere.
The Government have already done a good deal in their efforts to attract or direct industry into Scotland, and I hope that they will continue with these. But I also hope they will encourage by every conceivable means, including fiscal incentives, the setting up of research and development units in association with these industries in Scotland because I
50
believe this to be absolutely necessary. I should like to see the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research carry out a really intensive survey of the possibilities of technological development in existing Scottish industry. I do not believe that enough has been done in that way at present.
The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, mentioned something about Government research stations. I do not believe that anything is solved by simply putting up Government research stations. Of course, Government research stations are a good thing, but from a national point of view they should be put up only in the most appropriate situations. I am quite sure that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and other departments, will, where appropriate, locate any new stations in Scotland—witness the Torry Research Station and the National Engineering Laboratory. Having mentioned that, may I add that I should like to see Scottish industry take the maximum advantage from the presence of the National Engineering Laboratory at East Kilbride. And I should also like to see Scottish industry making more use than it is doing of the possibility that now exists of getting development contracts for civil industry.
In this respect, too, the universities have a part to play. The universities and the technical institutions of Scotland can play a considerable rôle by increasing their contacts, not only with places like the National Engineering Laboratory but also with industry, where they can do it also by research. I must confess that I was a little disturbed to see from the Report of the University Grants Committee that although in 1961 there were 280 first degrees in technology given in the Scottish universities there were only 11 higher degrees in technology: that is to say, less than 2 per cent. of the total number of higher degrees in technology awarded in the United Kingdom (excluding Northern Ireland). Glasgow University and the Royal College of Science and Technology in Glasgow produced between them four higher degrees—and these are institutions right in the midst of heavy engineering industries and hard by the National Engineering Laboratory. There may be various reasons for this, but it suggests to me that perhaps the Scottish universities

51
could do more at research level in technology than they are doing. The universities should ponder this fact, because the power of a country to-day is measured exactly by its technological strength, and there is no country in the world to-day which is industrially strong which does not at the same time have strong academic technology.
I was very much impressed by a speech which I heard from the noble Earl, Lord Perth, in your Lordships' House on November 7, when he spoke about the Scottish economy. I do not agree with everything he said, but I agree with quite a lot of it. In particular, I feel, as he did, that a change has in fact begun in Scotland, in that we are moving to a broader-based economy. It is obvious that in a phase of this type there must be temporary difficulties, some of them very severe, and particularly very severe personal difficulties associated with unemployment, due to redundancy and movement from one industry to another. Here undoubtedly there is need for Government assistance—perhaps more than has been given up to the present.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, spoke about communications, a matter which has been mentioned earlier this afternoon, and he spoke about road building and so on. These, of course, are important; but there is another area to which I should like to draw added attention, an area where I think there is room for a great deal more effort by the Government and local authorities. One needs only to travel casually through the industrial Lowlands of Scotland to see what a ghastly mess some of our forbears have made of what was beautiful country. I believe that there is room here—and not only room but need—for serious scientific study of these derelict areas.
There has been very much talk, both in your Lordships' House and elsewhere, about the drift to the South-East. In part, at least, that drift may be due to the attraction of better surroundings; because one must admit that the Home Counties are somewhat more attractive, from that point of view, than some of the industrial wastes we have inherited from the Victorian era. And when I say that a study should be made of these areas I do not mean that one should look at them and then put up two or three council houses in
52
the neighbourhood of a slag heap. There should be a scientific study into the possibility of complete restoration of these areas, and I am sure that, with the technical help which could be available through the universities and technical colleges in Scotland, studies of this type, backed by public money and by action upon the results, would not only give temporary alleviation in the matter of unemployment but also lead to a long-term improvement in the economy.
My Lords, I thank you for your patience and forbearance in listening to me. I fear that I have perhaps gone on rather long, but if I have done so it is because I feel very strongly that what I believe we can describe now as the past decline of Scottish industry exemplifies very clearly something of cardinal importance; that is, that it is impossible to keep an industrial economy strong without continued and vigorous application of technology in the direction of new products and new processes to maintain existing markets and win new markets. And I think there is in that past history of decline a warning and lesson not just for Scotland but for the country at large.
4.47 p.m.
LORD BILSLAND: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to me, as a fellow Scot speaking immediately after the noble Lord, Lord Todd, to offer him very sincere congratulations on his maiden speech. The noble Lord brings to your Lordships' House a very distinguished record in science and affairs and we have heard this afternoon a thoughtful, well-informed and constructive speech, giving a number of facts which must cause concern and pointing in a very convincing way to the need for more research and development in Scotland. I hope that the noble Lord will frequently give your Lordships' House the benefit of his experience and knowledge in these affairs.
The Motion which the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, has put down to-day is, I think, very opportune, and there is no one else who can speak with such authority on affairs in Scotland to-day as the noble Lord himself. We Scots all greatly admire the immense amount of work and leadership he has given in the affairs of the Scottish Council. There is, of course, serious concern in Scotland on the unemployment figures, but these figures are

53
not the main cause of our concern: it is that the action taken by Her Majesty's Government in the years since the war, including the effect of the Local Employment Act, has proved insufficient to redress the ills from which Scotland has suffered. In relation to the record of unemployment which so seriously affected Scotland in the middle 'thirties, the figures of recent years have, happily, been low. Nevertheless, when one reviews the period from 1953 to 1962—the past ten years— it is seen that average unemployment in Scotland has been double the United Kingdom average. In the United Kingdom in 1962 the average figure of unemployment was 2·2 per cent., but in the Scottish development districts, which contain 63·8 per cent. of the Scottish population, the figure was 5·3 per cent.
Unemployment figures are a soulless gauge of the situation. Behind them are apprehension, frustration, hardship, waste of skills, and fear of the dispersal of proved workers, with the loss of efficiency which results. But there is another unhappy figure affecting Scotland, to which the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, and the noble Lord, Lord Todd, have referred. It is a figure which I think is more serious and significant than those of unemployment, and that is the figure of migration. In the past ten years, 1952 to 1961, the average migration from Scotland was 28,000 per annum, of whom exactly half, on the average, went to England. These migrants, one may be sure, come from the young and virile section of the population whom Scotland can ill afford to lose, and they go to swell mainly the concentrations of population which the Barlow Commission referred to as long ago as 1940 as producing an alarmingly unbalanced distribution of industry. In the years 1951 to 1956 the insured population in London and the South-East increased by 12·5 per cent.; in Scotland, in the same period, by only 2·4 per cent.
I would quote one sentence from the Barlow Commission:
"A reasonable balance of industry and population throughout the country should be a main feature of national policy during the coming years."
If that aim has been a main feature of national policy, and I do not doubt that it has, then the Government must realise that it has proved very far short
54
of achieving its aim so far as Scotland is concerned. In the result there is real concern widely felt in Scotland to-day that the Government have failed to take cognisance of the situation and that there is need for a fresh appreciation of the situation and for the action that should follow. In saying that, I do not suggest that all remedial action depends on Government measures. Of course not. Industry in Scotland must play its part.
In the discussion of the position in Scotland to-day Lord Polwarth mentioned the reference sometimes made by very ill-informed commentators to the effect that the heavy industries in Scotland are in decline. Nothing could be further from the truth. Certainly they are very short of work but that is a very different matter from being in decline. I never felt more optimistic about their long-term future. A great deal of money has been spent in modernisation and re-equipment. For example, in the steel industry such expenditure has amounted in the last few years to £180 million, and equipment has been brought right up to date. Scotland now has a strip mill, as the noble Earl reminded us, and it is to be hoped it will make possible a wide range of new industry. Expenditure in the shipbuilding industry has been on a similar relative scale to that in steel.
We have long been hoping in Scotland that the Admiralty would accelerate and anticipate its naval programme. Here I must declare an interest as a director of Colvilles and a director of John Brown and Company of Clydebank. I welcome the statement made by the noble Earl in your Lordships' House this afternoon. As the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, said, it is a good beginning; it is a step in the right direction, I think were his words. But it is only a step, and I hope early action will be taken and on a considerable scale. Of the thirteen warship building firms in the United Kingdom six are on the Clyde. Therefore it is a very important matter for Scotland. It is well known that the Clyde made a massive contribution to armaments in both World Wars. In the present dearth of orders for merchant shipping, which is likely to continue for some time, it is surely of national interest that the teams of highly-skilled men in the shipbuilding industry should,

55
so far as possible, be held together. The British shipbuilding industry made a strong plea in this sense some time ago in a letter to The Times. I would quote one sentence:
"The facts afford the Government an opportunity which they should not ignore. Its acceptance could immeasurably strengthen a branch of our defence structure which we neglect at our peril and could contribute substantially to the continued preservation of a great national asset—our British shipbuilding industry."
May I turn now to the operation of the Local Employment Act, and here I have several suggestions that I should like to offer to your Lordships' House. In 1937, the Commissioner for the Special Areas invited me to set up the first industrial estate in Scotland, and I continued as Chairman until 1955. After the war, on account of our national financial crises, we had many frustrations. In 1947, 1948, 1951 and 1952 the provision of factories on a lease basis was held up or postponed for long periods. Nevertheless, when I retired Scottish Industrial Estates operated 20 estates and 35 individual sites, totalling 16 million square feet of factory space, with 355 tenants, giving employment to over 64,000 workers.
To what was that measure of success due? It was due, of course, to the provision of factories on a lease basis; but it was due also to two other things very particularly. It was due to the autonomy my Board enjoyed, within the Act and to the inducements we were authorised to offer. To-day, where are the autonomy and the inducements such as we offered? They are gone. The Local Employment Act changed the whole conception. The Boards were replaced by Management Corporations. The running of the enterprise as it had been run—the salesmanship, securing, establishing, fostering of tenants—was withdrawn into the impersonal hands of the Board of Trade. Conditions became rigid and stereotyped to the exclusion, inter alia, of the inducements that had operated so effectively.
In the Second Reading debate on the Local Employment Bill in your Lordships' House two years ago I expressed the opinion, based on my experience, that the change in conception was a major blunder; and I continue to hold that view. However, one must face facts,
56
and I will offer one or two suggestions, which I hope will be helpful and practicable within the Act, to restore something of what that Act removed. Here may I say that I have the fullest confidence in the Management Corporation in Scotland, all men of wide experience, serving under the charmanship of Sir Robert Maclean, who had served as Regional Controller of the Board of Trade before joining the Scottish Industrial Estates Board on which he succeeded me as Chairman. But I regret their very limited powers. I acknowledge, of course, that impressive progress has been made, but more is patently necessary. From 1946 to 1960, factory space completed in Scotland was 10 per cent. of the British total. In the years 1960 to 1962 it dropped to 7·3 per cent., and in the same period it increased in London and the South-East from 13·3 to 14 per cent.
I offer my suggestions for improvement of the Act under three headings: inducements, salesmanship and simplification. I will conclude with two suggestions of a more major character. As regards inducements, I suggest the reintroduction of the small nest factory of 3,000 square feet or thereabouts at a very low rent to enable the man of limited means to develop a good idea. Several major projects at Hillingdon to-day, amounting to several hundred thousand square feet, started from such a seed. It is, of course, implicit in such a provision that the tenant be automatically relieved of his factory if he outgrows it, and be provided with a larger one, at of course an appropriate rent fin relation to space. There is a social value, I suggest, in building up such an entrepreneur who is more likely to become a useful citizen than an immigrant manager of a branch factory from elsewhere.
Scotland has been most fortunate in securing the British Motor Corporation and the Rootes factories; but the number of such projects is small. The small man, I would suggest, presents a field worth tilling. Special terms to encourage him would make no appreciable difference in the percentage return on the whole capital outlay. Secondly, it should be possible for the corporation to assure an applicant that an extension will be built for him at the same relative rental, whether the area has ceased to be

57
a development district or not. The change of designation does not affect loans or grants already committed under the Act, arid surely it should not affect the growth of the factory on which repayment of the loans depends. The point I wish to make is the importance of encouraging the expanding firm. Thirdly, a system of rebates of rent applied in my time, which made the inducements obvious to the applicant. I do not recall that any difficulty arose in the Operation of this provision. Here, I should like to suggest a new inducement—an allowance for movement expenses to an operator moving into a development district. Finally I suggest, as the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, suggested, that the Board of Trade reviews the terms on which loans are made. One former inducement—abundant supplies of cheap coal—is no longer available. It is to be hoped that this discrimination in price against Scotland, which of course has nothing to do with the Local Employment Act, may soon be removed.
As regards salesmanship—the presentation of the services offered by the industrial estates and the securing of tenants—the noble Earl spoke a great deal about new factories being built, and I suggest that it is of the utmost importance that a new and a better approach than is being made to-day should be made to secure tenants. On this question of salesmanship, I should like to ask whether an impersonal body such as the Board of Trade, hedged in by regulations, is more likely to attract the tenant, or an enthusiastic, imaginative and vigorous corporation run by experienced businessmen bound to operate within the Act and working on the spot? It would be interesting to know what happens to applicants refused an industrial development certificate. I ask, are they encouraged to go elsewhere, and do many of them in fact do so? Are the corporations given the opportunity of contacting them? It seems only common sense to make the utmost use of, and to give the maximum authority to, the men running the organisation.
I come to my final point, simplification. There is great need for simplification. I should like to ask three questions to illustrate this point. Why cannot an applicant for a factory be told at the time of his inquiry what his rent would
58
be? Why need the purchase of ground be referred at every stage of the negotiations to ten separate people operating from a variety of local offices and headquarters, to give ten separate approvals? It is not surprising that an exasperating delay of five or six months frequently results before the project can get going. The corporation, I suggest, advised by the district valuer, should be empowered to carry through the deal. Is it not possible to simplify Clause 3 of the Local Government Act covering the provision of building grants? It is a masterpiece of obscurity, offering 85 per cent. of the difference between cost and current market value. A precise offer is essential. The terms and conditions under which factories are offered, and all the other facilities, must be clear, precise and available without undue delay to the inquirer, so that he can build up a table of costs and decide whether the proposition is viable or not. That is far from being the case to-day.
I conclude with my two major suggestions. The first is that the Local Employment Act be amended to make the facilities of the Act applicable in special cases where there are prospects of growth. The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, referred to this matter. There are areas in Scotland where, through the help of the Development Commissioners, a measure of assistance has been given, but it would facilitate progress if the Act were to apply in similar cases. My second suggestion is that a Minister of the Board of Trade, a man selected for his experience of business, be placed whole time in charge of the distribution of industry policy, to review its operation, to work out standard formulæ of initial inducements and to examine the causes of delay and frustration, in consultation with those operating the policy in the corporations. Such a Minister should, I suggest, compare our methods and approach in this field with those of countries abroad, whose procedure has frequently been compared most favourably with ours in my hearing by American inquirers. The Minister meantime responsible under the President deals with distribution of industry policy as one of a large group of responsibilities. I suggest that this is a full-time job.
I base this suggestion not only on the case I have endeavoured to make for

59
the introduction of inducements, salesmanship and simplification, nor on account of the Board of Trade commitments in the cost of financial assistance given and of the provision of factories built under the two Acts, which amounts to close on £200 million. I have another reason. It is that when I was responsible, with others, for the provision of factories under the Distribution of Industry Act, I was all along conscious of a real lack of appreciation on the part of the Board of Trade of the problems arising and of the need for clarity, dispatch and understanding, in presenting the facilities offered. There was, I should like to add, one period when the position was wholly different, when the late Sir Stafford Cripps was President of the Board of Trade; but after he had gone that interest and understanding was not restored in my time. My Lords, I feel that it is upon interest end understanding, at the top that real progress depends.
5.10 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I would start by joining the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, in extending congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Todd, for the maiden speech with which he has favoured us this afternoon. He has such a tremendous reputation in his own field that, in expressing congratulations to him, I feel almost in the category of the small boy who, in his first years at school, compliments the headmaster on the way he runs the show. What Lord Todd said in his particular field I am sure made most acceptable hearing to all of us. Like Lord Bilsland, I express the hope that we may hear him frequently in the future. I may add that it is a special pleasure to me to hear a Scottish Peer who makes it obvious from his accent where he comes from—who not only calls a spade a spade, but an Erroll an Erroll!
It is not mere politeness that causes me to express to the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, my thanks for introducing this debate, particularly at a time when Scottish economic problems are more acute than they have been for a generation, and when, because of the national political situation, those who occupy the centres of power may be willing to listen to proposals designed to cure the causes
60
of our difficulties rather than tinker with the results. As Lord Polwarth stated in Edinburgh on December 17, it is no solution to wipe up the puddle on the floor if you do not mend the hole in the roof through which the water has come.
My Lords, I was sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, denied the rumour—which I heard for the first time at lunch yesterday—that he had been briefed by the Foreign Office. It is a pity it is not true because, so far as I can see, Scotland would fare very much better if the Government were to treat it with the same courtesy normally extended to foreigners; and if he can prevail on his colleagues to let this be regarded as part of his normal activities, all may not yet be lost.
I was interested in what the noble Earl said, and a great deal of what he said about the history of this problem was factual; but I must confess that I did not think that it was particularly relevant to what we are discussing today, because we are concerned with the future. If there is one thing which is obvious at the present time it is that, whatever has been done—and I would be the first to admit that a great deal has been done—the simple fact remains that it is not enough. Therefore, to refer to "the past" really begs the point. To me the most interesting part of his remarks was the information that Departments for which the Secretary of State is not directly responsible are to be represented in the new Scottish Development Department, and, if proper use is made of that representation, I think it can be an exceedingly useful thing for Scotland.
Much of what the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, said as Chairman of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) was, of course, exactly what we would expect him to say because of his past knowledge of these problems and the tremendous amount of work he has put into these matters since he took over that position from the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland. I was also very pleased to hear the constructive proposals put forward by Lord Bilsland in the speech which he has just made. The one which impressed me perhaps more than any other, simply because it is so easy to put into operation, was his point as to what happened

61
to the people who were refused industrial development certificates, and the suggestion that information as to such people should be passed on to the development areas. The Scottish Development Department should make it its business to arrange, as from now, with the Board of Trade that they should be informed al the, names and addresses of anybody who is refused such a certificate, so that the development areas and new towns in Scotland should get on their doorstep right away. That is most important.
The Government have constantly exhorted industry not to sit back and wait for business to come to them, but to get out after it. As chairman of a new town development corporation, I must say that I found this good practice when I recently followed it up by going to America, when an industry there had expressed an interest in Scotland. They were very impressed by the fact that the chairman of the corporation went to New York, to see them, and they have decided to come. The deciding factor between ourselves and another was that we were sufficiently interested in them to go to see them. If we get this information from the Board of Trade in East Kilbride, Cumbernauld, Livingstone, Glasgow, Fife, then we may well see new industries coming to those places. I would suggest that the Secretary of State for Scotland should be given a little more financial power in these matters. He approved my visit in seven days—that was in July; but it was on the day before I left to go to America, on October 5, that received formal Treasury consent to pay my fare. A little more speed than that is necessary.
My Lords, I do not believe that in a debate of this kind any useful purpose will be served by lengthy political attacks on, the Government or its members. In my opinion, that can be more appropriately and effectively done elsewhere. Such quotations as I propose to make from the Ministers' remarks are merely for the purpose of setting a background for my own proposals, because in the first instance there must be a radical change of attitude on the part of members of the Government. I was very pleased to hear the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Polwarth and Lord Bilsland, on this subject because I find myself
62
merely following a theme which they have already set.
Speaking in this House on May 21 last, the then Minister without Portfolio, the noble Viscount, Lord Mills, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 240, col. 820]:
"I have become a little case-hardened over these unhappy pictures of Scotland. I meet them in so many connections. My own experience is that the Scots are very well able to look after themselves."
Unfortunately, that particular attitude is not peculiar to Lord Mills; he was peculiar amongst Ministers only in admitting it. Of course, he was right in saying that Scots are very well able to look after themselves; they are in those fields where power to do so lies in their own hands. But that is not in the field of Government where it is necessary to enlist the aid of at least part of the non-Scottish majority, if Government action is to be taken. In this connection I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that while there is no appreciable growth in Scottish nationalism in terms of political membership or voting strength, there is a very great increase in the number of people who preface their remarks on Scottish affairs by the words, "I am not a Scottish nationalist, but—". It is a symptom of a very real dissatisfaction with results from Government at Westminster.
In Glasgow, on December 12, the noble Viscount who leads this House said:
"Strange movements of population are taking place within this island—movements not fully understood, and, not being fully understood, very difficult to control. If the population chooses to regard the invasion of Surbiton as preferable to remaining in the Highlands or in Newcastle-on-Tyne, it is difficult to say, unless we are able to offer altertives actually more attractive to them, that either the Highlands or the population are worse off, or that the people who vote in this way with their feet (which is the most effective way of voting) are wrong. I am a United Kingdom Minister and must hold no special brief for Scotland over and above any other part of the Kingdom similarly placed."
Within weeks of making that statement he has accepted a special brief, and Newcastle may not be particularly pleased now about his normal view of their needs, as I may say most of the Scots who were present at that luncheon in Glasgow viewed the remarks which he made so far as we were concerned. Quite briefly, we boiled it down to this: that the noble Viscount was telling us that we must stew in our own juice.

63
The phrase "voting with their feet" was, I believe, first used about those people who fled from Communist-controlled countries, particularly East Germany. Does anyone believe that they do so because they want to leave their own land? Is it not the policy of their Government which causes them to move, and is it not true that if that Government changed, if that Communist creed were abandoned, they would go back to their homelands in their millions? Such a change would immediately put an end to this outward trek from these countries. The same is true of Scotland. If the opportunities for employment in their own land had existed, many now in the South would not have gone there. Create these jobs in Scotland, and many who otherwise would leave in the years that lie ahead will be proud and happy to stay, and many who have gone away will be glad of the opportunity to come back.
When the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said that these movements were not fully understood, I frankly did not know what he was talking about. There is nothing mysterious about it. A man loses his job in Glasgow, in Kirkcaldy, in Dundee or in Inverness, and he cannot find employment locally. He knows from what he hears on television, on radio, and from what he reads in the newspapers, that there are more jobs—or there were at that time—than there are people to fill them in the Midlands of England and in the South-East of England. He goes there and finds a job, sometimes with the difficulties of being separated from his family for a period of two years until he is in a financial position to set up house for them. There is nothing difficult to understand about that. Men who must live by what they can earn must, in the present circumstances, go where the jobs are. When the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, said he was glad that this policy of laissez-faire in that respect was disappearing, he could have added that it was not disappearing fast enough.
I receive from time to time copies of the journal Town and Country Planning, and I was interested to read in this month's issue a reference to these problems of Scotland and the North of England. This was said of Mr. Erroll:
64
"The President of the Board of Trade used the occasion to issue a clarion call to inactivity, on the grounds that any policy designed to strengthen the northern economy radically would interfere with personal liberty."
All I would comment on that is that I hope it is not a doctrine which receives substantial support within the Cabinet. If it does so up to this moment, I should hope that one result of this Scottish debate would be to remove that attitude from their minds once and for all.
If Ministers are therefore prepared to change their attitudes and look at things afresh, what should they then do? First, as has been stated clearly by the noble Lords, Lord Polwarth and Lord Bilsland, there should be clearly defined lines of inducement to industrialists, either from abroad or from the South, which wild enable these people to make their own calculations of the assistance they can receive. That is done in Northern Ireland. An industrialist making inquiries in Northern Ireland can know within a week to a penny what he will receive in grants and loans. It may be a month, it may be three months, it may be longer before he knows what he will get from the Board of Trade, because there are no published rules available for him to know. Each case is dealt with on its merits, and only after the advisory committee have considered the merits of the proposal does the individual know what he is getting, if he is in fact getting anything at all.
Secondly, these terms must be more realistic as inducements than the present ones are. It is obvious that we are falling short of attracting industry to the extent which we require, because the inducement, the encouragement, the bribe—call it what you will—to industry is not enough. Now if it is not enough and you want to get results, you alter it. What is the present position? An approved applicant can get a factory built for him at rates which, for a limited period, cover only the interest charges, and later at a figure which includes an element of amortisation. He can receive certain limited grants in connection with the transfer of employees, he can receive loans which the Scottish Council has stated—and I am now quoting—
"are at rates only slightly more favourable than normal commercial loans—indeed, some companies have found that, with changing rates in the commercial market, they have obtained better terms over a period through their normal channels."

65
What do I propose in place of this? First, it should be obvious to all concerned that the financial inducements are real, and better than can be got elsewhere. Secondly, they should be of sufficient duration to enable concerns to establish themselves firmly and permanently. I emphasise "firmly and permanently" because too often in Scotland we have experienced, as we are now experiencing, the fact that what is set up is merely a branch, a limb, and when the parent end gets into difficulty the easiest thing is to chop off the limb and we are back where we started. What I propose is that factories built in approved areas by the Board of Trade or by New Town Development Corporations should for a period of seven years be rented at 4 per cent. of the capital cost, and thereafter at current rates of interest plus a suitable amortisation figure; and that the general directions given to the Board of Trade Advisory Committee, in terms of Section 4 (2) of the Local Employment Act, 1960. should be to make their recommendations on the following bases.
The first is to lend to approved applicants an amount up to the applicant's own working capital at an interest rate of 4 per cent. Where additional working capital is required this should be provided at current rates of interest. Secondly, to make a grant of the cost of moving plant and equipment from a present location to the new factory. That goes a little further than what the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, said a few minutes ago, but it is merely following a pattern followed in Northern Ireland, and I think it is a most reasonable and equitable proposal. If a man has to move his plant and equipment from somewhere in the South of England or elsewhere in this country up to a new location in Scotland, and it costs him £20,000 or £30,000 to do so, at the end of the day he has no direct return on that money. It seems to me perfectly reasonable that he should receive an outright grant of the cost of transferring that plant and equipment—a cost which is involved not necessarily for his own direct advantage, or the advantage of his company, but for the benefit of the economy of the country as a whole. The third proposal is to make a grant to cover the costs of removal and settling
66
in of personnel transferred to the new factory. Basically, of course, that is what is done at the present time. I list it merely in case someone suggests later that by omitting to mention it I was suggesting its discontinuation.
Now these are the first of my proposals, and they can be done without any alteration of the law at all, because the present sections of the Local Employment Act covering these matters are in exceedingly broad terms and can cover directions of the kind I have mentioned. What I am now to propose (again, it is a follow-up of something which the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, said, but I am again being a little bolder than he, and perhaps a little more incautious) would need action at the present time. I propose, in addition, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should make arrangements for legislation to grant to industries setting up in approved areas total relief from income and profits tax for a period of five years, and a remission of 50 per cent. of such taxes for a further period of five years.
Having looked at the terms of the Local Employment Act I am aware that it contains a provision for the repayment of grants in certain circumstances, and it would be quite a simple system to extend that method to the remission of income and profits taxes which I have suggested to ensure the continuation of these industries in the approved areas for some years after they have received these grants. For instance, to suggest one possible method, before the remission of tax received in the first year became final, there would have to be one year remaining after taxation had remained. The twelfth year would make absolute the remission received in the second year, and so on; so that, to receive the full and final advantages of these remissions, these people would in fact be committed to remaining in the approved area for a period of twenty years. If I may follow up what the noble Viscount, Lord Mills, said about the Scots being well able to help themselves, if, after they have been there for twenty years, we have not impressed them with the desirability to themselves, of remaining there for their own sake, apart from anybody else, then we deserve anything that is coming to us.
These proposals are easily understood; they are generous and they are

67
workable. Any one of us, meeting an industrialist from -the South, or meeting an industrialist in America, in Sweden, in Germany, or in any of the countries where they are considering setting up plants in Scotland, can tell him these principles, if something of this kind is done, and he can sit down and work out for himself what he will get. If I may, I will quote the case of an actual industry which proposed setting up in either Scotland or Northern Ireland. It was a product which, fortunately for Northern Ireland, could be just as conveniently manufactured there as anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
There came to Scotland the head of the firm—incidentally, although the subsidiary is British-based, the head of the firm was American, and he was over on one of their very rapid visits. He went first to Northern Ireland, and he was there for three days. When he came away after three days he knew the exact amount of money he could get under various heads; he had an idea of the amount for which he could sell his factory in the South-East. And putting the two sets of figures together, he came to the remarkable conclusion that by shifting to Northern Ireland he would be £3,000 in pocket. If he sold his factory for more than he anticipated, of course, it would be £3,000-plus. Then he came to make his inquiries in Scotland, and he learnt that, with the utmost speed, three months must inevitably elapse before he could know what he would get in Scotland. Is it surprising that he decided to set up in Ireland, and is it surprising, although regrettable, that within a year of that decision being taken his subsidiary factory in St. Andrews was closed down and the manufacture of his golf clubs in Scotland no longer continued? Fortunately for St. Andrews, another concern has taken over the factory and has taken over the manufacture of these golf clubs there, so that the local skill continues to be employed.
I have said that my proposals are simple, generous and workable. But an obvious query in matters of this kind is: what will they cost? I thought the easiest way of dealing with that was to take an actual case from my own knowledge as chairman of a development corporation. This is a case where
68
the factory which the people are to erect will cost £100,000, where the working capital will be £250,000, and where the number of men (and I stress men, because that is the most important for us in Scotland: to get industries which will employ men, as distinct from women and girls) to be employed will be 300. Under the present set-up, the rental for that factory will start at £6,000 a year and will rise in due course to £8,000—an average, over a period of ten years, of £7,000 a year. Under the basis which I have suggested for rental, the rent over the ten years will be £4,000 a year, so that the cost per year under that head will be £3,000. Of the capital of £250,000 required, if the firm provided half they would then receive a loan of the other £125,000 from the Board of Trade, which, at present costs, would work out at £7,500 a year in interest. Under my proposal, it would cost them £5,000 a year in interest; so that the saving to them and the cost to the Exchequer under that head would be £2,500.
Now I come to the "64,000 dollar" part of the question—taxable profits. On a profit of, say, £25,000—and if the working capital was £250,000 I do not think it is unreasonable to assume for purposes of this kind a profit of £25,000—income tax at the present rate would be £9,687. Remission for five years and a 50 per cent. remission for a further five years would mean an average cost, at the present rates, of £7,265; so that the total annual cost of my proposals for that firm would be £12,765. At present rates, 300 men at present unemployed will draw (this figure, I must admit, was prepared before the statement made to-day by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee; so the new figures are obviously now altered in my favour), on average about £4 a week in unemployment benefit. That amounts to £62,400 per annum for doing nothing, instead of adding to the productive capacity of the country. It does not look like a bad bargain to me.
Some industries, of course, will be more expensive than others, and some will need a higher capital ratio or more expensive factories. But the costs I have given can be multiplied by five before they exceed the cost of unemployment benefit alone. In addition, the country will, of course, receive large sums in personal income tax from the wages and salaries

69
earned in the new factories, so that the figures I have quoted are not the end of the finances.
I believe that it is possible to work out methods of applying these grants, loans and reliefs to those people presently located in the approved areas, to enable them to increase the number of people presently employed by them. I think that that is important, because at present it is a source of grievance. People say, "Why are we so dependent on people coming in from England, or on people coming from America? What is wrong with the Scots that they do not expand themselves?". So many of the people in Scotland would not be eligible for assistance, that I think it is important that, if those who are presently there can increase the number of jobs, they should receive proportionately the same sort of assistance as is given to the incomer. It is quite simple to work out, given the will to do it.
In the interests of your Lordships' time I will confine my remarks to proposals directed to encouraging new industry into Scotland. I have said nothing about electricity, the use of coal, the continuation of railways, the need for air services (by subsidy, if necessary) and expenditure on roads. These all have their part in the pattern, and neglect of any of them will, of course, have a profound effect on the economy of the country. But I leave all these aspects to others. I would emphasise to industrialists, management and workers alike, that Scotland has much to offer them. The amenities of New Towns in Scotland are as good as those of England, and life in the existing towns is not so different from that in their English counterparts. In most parts the climatic differences are minor: on occasions such as the present, Scotland fares better. Meteorological comparisons show that in rainfall, temperature, and sunshine, Fife is very similar to Kent, except in fog, where the advantage is with Fife. It is easy to get to golf courses, and the golf is cheaper. No one needs to go far to get to good bathing beaches, and even with all that needs to be done in Scottish road works, the traffic jams are not so common as on Southern roads. Almost everyone has lovely scenery within a short journey. Shopping facilities are first-class in all the large centres
70
of population and wonderfully good in some of the smaller towns.
With all these advantages and sufficiently good financial inducements people should be queueing up to come to Scotland. If, in spite of the improved inducements, industry fails to come to the development areas in adequate numbers, then there must be something basically wrong with the private enterprise setup. I believe they will come, with these inducements, but I may be wrong. Maybe nothing we can do will persuade them. If that is the case, then the Government should not shrink from the only alternative—State investment directly in industry. And if that need should arise, and the present Government shrink from their duty, then I am certain that another and more bold one will not do so.
My attention has been drawn to evidence given to the Royal Commission on the Geographical Distribution of the Industrial Population (the Barlow Commission) on the 31st March, 1938. I have objected to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, giving us history, and now I am going to do the same. It is a rather interesting snippet of history. Evidence was given by one Harold Macmillan, M.P. He was advocating a system of standard charges for the transport of goods, and he instanced, as a pattern of it, the fact that tobacco manufactured in Bristol is sold at the same price in Wick as in Bristol because the charges are equalised over all the customers. He was advocating an extension of that system, with all the difficulties that he recognised were involved in such a proposal. But what interested me particularly, because it seemed to me to be so appropriate, was one particular paragraph towards the end of his remarks. I have only extracts of his speech, and I do not know whether he was speaking for himself or for a group of people, or whether he was using the Royal and editorial "We". He said:
"It is in our opinion an aim which should be pursued even if it was found to involve some form of State subsidy. It would be better to spend money for this purpose and win freedom to determine deliberately the geographical distribution of population, the desirable size and location of our towns and the best means of preserving the amenities of the country surrounding the towns rather than continue our present huge expenditure in building sprawling areas of brick. To-day our towns are becoming larger and larger prisons within which an increasing portion of our

71
people live in complete isolation from the countryside It is, moreover, costly. A wiser direction of expenditure on the lines we suggest would liberate them and by wider distribution in the country improve their health and vitality."
My Lords, a quarter of a century has elapsed since Mr. Macmillan said these things. They are, in my opinion, even more true to-day than they were when he said them, and they can be applied in a much wider sphere than that of transport charges. I do not think I can do better, in closing my contribution to this debate, than to say that I adopt his words in putting forward my own proposal.
5.46 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, my reason for intervening in this debate and intruding on your Lordships' time is that in my capacity as chairman of a public board I have acquired some practical experience of the subject under discussion which may be of some value. This comes about because the Act setting up the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board contains this provision:
"The North of Scotland Board shall so far as their powers and duties permit collaborate in the carrying out of any measures for the economic development and social improvement of the North of Scotland District or any part thereof."
The Board have always taken this provision seriously, and although, in interpreting it, they quite naturally decided that first priority should be given to the extensive provision of electricity—at considerable loss—to the sparsely populated and remote areas of the Highlands and Islands covering no less than three-quarters of the land area of Scotland, they have also done their utmost to attract new industries into their district. In this they have had some success, for they have succeeded in attracting to the North a variety of new light industries with a high labour content. They include the manufacture of such items as electricity meters, small lamps, transformers, cookers, small tools and the like.
The Board's staff are continually seeking out further possibilities, and several very promising prospects are about to be signed up. They have reinforced these efforts by taking manufacturers to view suitable sites and by the publication of information in a booklet entitled The North for Industry in Scotland. In the
72
process of doing this the Board, of course, have become well aware of where weaknesses lie in the procedure which presently applies before assistance can be given to those seeking to establish new' industry. It is in this direction that I think I can contribute something of value to your Lordships.
The problem which faces us in the Highlands and Islands is to stop people from drifting away until communities cease to be viable and then gradually cease to exist. What the Highlands require are measures that will keep people from drifting away; and by far the most effective measure is to provide employment. Forestry is already doing that, and will do it to an increasing extent as our forests grow towards maturity and industries dependent on timber are established in their vicinity. Industries of all kinds are hesitant about moving North to the Highlands and that part of our country lying North of Dundee and East of Inverness, and many are unwilling to venture there without some firm assurance of the measure of help they will receive from the Government. Naturally, where public funds are concerned, forms have to be filled up and investigations have to be made, measures which I suggest to your Lordships are quite unexceptionable, if carried out without undue delay and without going into matters of detail which have no very obvious bearing on the financial worth of the undertaking or on its future prospects. Above all, as other noble Lords have said, it is essential to avoid delays such as are likely to create feelings of frustration in the mind of the applicant.
One of the very real troubles is that when the industrialist is in process of making up his mind there does not appear to be anyone who can tell him what measure of help will be forthcoming. My noble friend Lord Bilsland and the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, have both referred to that aspect. There is no one to tell what the rent of his factory is going to be or what financial assistance he will obtain if he wants to own his own factory. I will give an example of the kind of thing that happens, but before I do so, I wish to make it abundantly plain that I am not attacking anyone or imputing blame to anyone. My sole purpose is to point out the difficulties which have arisen and do arise and

73
Which would appear to be inherent in the present system.
The case I have in mind is that of an industrialist who, having decided that he would like to come to Scotland, entered into negotiations with a view to having a factory built for himself. During these negotiations it was indicated that the rent would be about 2s. 6d. per square foot, and it was on that understanding that he decided to go ahead. Later he received notice that the rent would be 5s. 6d. per square foot. In these circumstances, it appeared probable that the deal was going to fall through, but, fortunately, after lengthy negotiation, the rent was restored to the original 2s. 6d. Another case of which I know is that of a foreign company with an international reputation which was seriously considering setting up a factory in the North-East of Scotland. They had visited several sites and found them suitable. They had acquired all the information they required, with the exception of the amount of Government assistance they could expect if they went ahead and built their own factory. The project has not been proceeded with.
There are other questions which have been mentioned and gone into somewhat deeply, but I just want to mention them and no more. Questions on which it is difficult to obtain a ready answer are: Is Government aid available, such as exists in Northern Ireland and Eire, towards the cost of equipping a new factory? Is help available where persons from the area in which a factory is to be, built are required to go to the factory of the parent company for training? Are loans available towards meeting the initial outlay involved in setting up a new factory?
There is one matter which appears to be an insuperable obstacle to some people. This was a case where a loan was in question. All the preliminary hurdles had been successfully negotiated. When the conditions under which the loan was to 'be granted were formally placed before the company, the terms included this clause:
"The Board—
that is, the Board of Trade—
"have the right to call on the company to remove and replace directors if their advisers report that the company has been incompetently managed and to require the company to alter their Articles of Association to allow
74
for the removal of any director holding office for life."
The company refused to accept the clause and the project fell through. And I know of another case of a company refusing to sign an agreement which included that clause. Your Lordships will no doubt have your own views as to the merits or otherwise of a clause of that nature. My own view is that if there is any doubt about the competency of the management, a loan should not even be considered. But further, I should like to suggest that where a loan is in question, the terms on which it would be granted should be made plain at the outset, so that the time and effort involved in the initial negotiations should not be wasted. Once agreement has been reached in principle that a project should go ahead, is highly desirable that it should be completed without any undue delay. That, unfortunately, is not always the case.
At the end of December, 1959, a company made known its intention to manufacture in the North of Scotland. Three months later, full details of the project and the actual site on which the factory was to be built were given to the Press. Thereafter, for various reasons, on which I will not comment, there was one delay after another and the factory was not finally ready for occupation until August, 1962. It had taken two years and nine months to provide the company with a standard—I repeat, standard—factory of 7,000 square feet. Another case was in connection with an extension to an existing factory. Here the company had already been provided with a factory of 20,000 square feet. In August, 1961, agreement was reached to provide an extension of 10,000 square feet. A year later, in August, 1962, work on the extension was just starting, and according to my latest information the extension is not ready for occupation yet. In neither of these cases would there appear to be any real sense of urgency, although both factories were situated in areas of high and persistent unemployment.
There is another matter which, I suggest, calls for some consideration, as it is a source of irritation, and sources of irritation should be avoided in a matter of this kind. In one case of which I know it very nearly resulted in a project falling through. It is that an industrialist

75
wishing either to lease a factory or to have one built for him, is required to sign a letter of indemnity which makes him financially responsible for expenditure incurred by other parties, in the event of the project falling through, not at his wish or through any fault of his, but as the result, it may be, of a mere change of mind of some other party over whom he has no control.
I have a very considerable correspondence with chairmen and managing directors all over the country who, I have reason to believe, may be contemplating programmes of extension. The object of this correspondence, of course, is to interest them in the north of Scotland. The great majority of those to whom I have written—and I have written to some 500 within the last nine months—reply telling me of their interest and their intentions. Many of them tell me that they have recently completed their extension programme but, if they had known what the North had to offer prior to committing themselves, they would certainly have come and seen for themselves before finally deciding on the location of their new factory.
One chairman wrote to me some two months after I had written to him. He told me that he had been on a prolonged visit to the United States and that during his absence negotiations had been continued for a factory in the south of Scotland. He had no knowledge whatsoever that such facilities as I had made known to him existed north of Glasgow. He told me that in negotiation no mention was made of sites available out with the main industrial belt. On receipt of that letter, I got in touch with this gentleman and he asked to be shown what Dundee had to offer. He visited various sites there, called on the Lord Provost and had discussions with local officials, and left saying that he was completely satisfied that Dundee was entirely suitable for his purpose and that he would so report to his board. Some few days later I had a letter from him informing me that at a meeting of his board one of his colleagues had disclosed the fact that to all intents and purposes he had entered into a binding agreement to go to East Kilbride, a situation which he said he would have to accept.
76
I sometimes wonder—and I wondered during the speech of my noble friend to-day—why some people, when they speak of Scotland, can see no further than the valleys of the Clyde and Forth. They seem to be quite unconscious of that other three-quarters of our country where the introduction of industry is essential unless depopulation is to be accepted and a sportsground is to take the place of what was once, and still can be, a happy and prosperous countryside. Is it perhaps that they can take little interest in projects such as our northern burghs would find suitable and could support? If so, it should not be forgotten that a small project, employing, it may be, only 20 or 30 people, can mean as much to the majority of the communities in the Highlands as one giving employment to hundreds in the industrial belt.
Some of the letters I have received from industrialists speak of the cost of transport prohibiting their coming to the Highlands. Earlier I spoke of an extension to an existing factory. The people who made that extension wrote this:
"If you have not visited the factory for some time, you will find a very active and efficient unit, which saves about enough to offset the disadvantage of transport of raw material and finished products."
Perhaps we make too much of the disadvantages arising from the cost of transport, which, as the experience of this firm shows, can be compensated for by the advantages gained through lower rates, ideal sites, freedom from congested roads and a labour force highly adaptable, very skilled, hard-working and intensely loyal.
I am not one of those who fail to recognise the great benefits which have accrued to our country through the operation of the Local Employment Act and other measures which the Government have taken. That Act, however, deals with a situation where there is a high rate of unemployment or where a high rate of unemployment threatens. Unemployment there must be, it seems, before the provisions of the Act can be brought into operation. In other words, it is not a preventative but a remedy to be applied in the hope of stemming the disease once it has broken out. As I have said before, what faces us in the Highlands and Islands is that people drift away until communities cease to be

77
viable. The Local Employment Act gives little or no help to deal with that situation. What the Highlands require are measures which will keep people from drifting away, and by far the most effective measure in this respect is to provide employment.
There are people who say—and it has been said this afternoon—that even then the drift will continue and the people who have left the Highlands will never return. That is far from being true. Forestry has brought people back from Glasgow to their native glens. When one of the new enterprises in the North advertised for people to go South and train in the new techniques, many of the applications came from England, from places like Corby, and also from the South of Scotland, stating that the applicants desired to be trained so that they could return home again.
If, then, the population of the North is to be retained, work must be provided. If it is not provided, the drift will continue until a stage is reached where the Islands and the northern counties may well have to be garrisoned to prevent unauthorised citizens of other countries from settling there. Your Lordships may think I am exaggerating. But go to the Orkneys; go to the Shetlands; and go even to the shores of the Moray Firth, and look to the horizons and you will see the ships in the distance that will be only too glad to land. For myself, I do not believe that that state will be reached. What I do believe is that, with abundant supplies of electrical power available; with the great improvement in communication by road which the Forth and Tay bridges forecast and which have been spoken of by my noble friend Lord Dundee this afternoon; with a modern freight transport system such as we have reason to believe may soon be forthcoming; with air services which bring Wick, Inverness, Aberdeen and, I hope before long, Dundee within a few hours of London and the Continent; with magnificent sites situated adjacent to safe deep-water harbours convenient to Europe and giving access to the oceans of the world and to every continent (just consider for a moment the potential of a place like Invergordon), industrialists in the not too distant future will discover the advantages which Scotland still has to offer.
78
But this must come quickly. To hasten the start, to increase the flow of the industrial migration from the South and from across the North Atlantic, the Government must prime the pump; they must provide incentives other than those which they have hitherto offered and must wholeheartedly play their part in selling Scotland to the world. I claim, with all modesty, that the Hydro Board and the Scottish Council are playing their part along with the Government. If the Government will continue thinking in terms of that help, this great area, one quarter of the area of the whole of the United Kingdom, may still be restored to prosperity and enabled to contribute its share to the economy of the United Kingdom.
6.7 p.m.
LORD McCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: My Lords, I venture to intervene in this debate as one whose family, along with many other Scotsmen and Scotswomen, moved South to England to seek their fortunes more than 150 years ago. All I can claim is that we went back to Scotland: the firm that I represent has factories both in Scotland and in England; indeed, I have been fortunate enough to have other business connections in Scotland of which I am very proud. For that reason, as I say, I venture to intervene for a few minutes on a subject which I do not think has been touched upon to any great extent this afternoon. Before I embark on that subject, I would say this. I hope and trust that the Government, and Edinburgh in particular, will pay every possible attention to the speech which we heard from my noble friend Lord Bilsland. It seemed to me that, of the many speeches we have heard in this House on many subjects, none was more authoritative. He knows Scottish, industry probably better than any other living man, and I trust that the Government will profit by what he said, as I am sure that Scotland will profit if they do so.
Let me say straight away that, so far as work in the factory is concerned, in my industry and in other industries with which I am acquainted there is no difference that one can detect in the average productivity or efficiency of the workman or woman between England and Scotland. I have always been brought up to believe that the

79
Scottish farmer is superior to the English farmer, but I have no real method of judging that. I am sure, however, that, so far as industry is concerned, there is no difference in the quality of the industrial personnel. Therefore the point that I wish to make is that it is essential for the continued prosperity of industry in Scotland—after all the things that have been suggested to—day have been done; when all the new factories have been built and the people placed into work—that Scottish industry should be able to compete successfully, both with England and overseas, in the markets which lie open to both. To do that, Scottish industry must become and remain at least as efficient as, if not more efficient than, certain parts of English industry which have advantages of location and one thing and another.
So far as wages are concerned, trade union and employer organisations tend to embrace both Scottish and English industry, and the wage rates are normally the same in both countries. There is one small point—it is only a small point, but it is one of many—that in Scotland, by and large, the rents, especially of those in the municipalities and under the local authorities, are very much lower than they are in England, and the extra charges are borne ultimately by industry. Therefore, in Scotland we must remember that there is an extra charge on industry for the low rates, while in fact the Scottish trade unionist or worker in the factory is getting the best of it so far as money is concerned.
There are many points in regard to this matter which need to be equalised out in some way if we are going to maintain the efficiency of Scottish industry on at least a par with that in the South. A point I wish particularly to mention is in the matter of industrial relations. Good industrial relations are a vital, possibly the most vital, factor in efficiency in any industry or any factory. Good industrial relations are a key to increased output and increased productivity. It would appear, especially to those who stand somewhat outside, that the old antagonisms between employer and trade unionist, which were a lamentable feature in the past, are breaking down rather more slowly in Scotland than in England. I say it would appear to be so, and in discussion of the matter with
80
other industrialists that would appear to be their opinion.
I believe, and believe most strongly, that nearly all enlightened leaders of industry, both management and trade unionist, are now fully persuaded that benefits for both employer and employee come from co-operation rather than from conflict. But I have the uneasy feeling that, with this modern outlook—and Scottish trade unionist leaders will, I know, agree with this statement just as much as their English counterparts do—it takes longer to reach out to the rank and file on the shop floor, especially in some of the older industries. In the admirable Toothill Report on Scottish Industry some pertinent remarks were made on this subject which I think should be borne in mind by all. I think the state of industrial relations in Scotland has been misinterpreted in many quarters, and misunderstood both at home and abroad. It is a fact that time lost by industry in Scotland, although relatively small, about half a day per man per year, is nevertheless considerably more than it is in England. Why is this? The higher Scottish figures of absenteeism and stoppages are often regarded, and I think rightly regarded, as reflecting the true state of industrial relations in the area. The aim far Scottish industry, I would maintain, must be to achieve a record which is as good as, if not better than, that of the rest of the country.
Any economy which is trying to improve its position, as that of Scotland, must look at the factors which are under their own control. I would suggest—and I have said this before in this House—that good relations are a responsibility primarily of management, and it is for management to take the first steps to see that relations in their concern are good. Management must recognise the benefit of modern outlook, of good communications, of proper consultation and the like. But the trade unionists also have a most important responsibility for improving relations, especially, if I might say so, in the matter of indiscipline within their own body, which is causing a good deal of difficulty at the present time. I am sure that nothing would improve the efficiency of Scottish industry more than that steps be taken by the trade union leaders to relax such restrictive

81
practices as demarcation of labour, which is a curse of so many of our industries. I would urge that these matters should receive every possible study by Scottish industry until we can be assured that the time lost in industrial disputes in Scotland is as small as it can possibly be made.
There is one other question to which I should like to refer on the subject of employment, which always seems to be one which has been rather overlooked. The problem of employment in Scotland is mainly, as we have just heard, a problem of unemployed men and of unskilled men. I have long been of opinion (and I have said so in your Lordships' House before now) that it seems to me almost crazy, on social and employment grounds, that we should go on spending large sums of money ion hydro-electric schemes in the Highlands when coal-burning thermal schemes could give steady, permanent employment to the badly hit Scottish mining industry, especially if the economics of the question are more or less in balance. Up to now we have never really known whether they were, but we now have the authority of the admirable Mackenzie Report placed before us which shows that the balance is very small either way—on economic grounds coal-fired thermal stations can be justified just as much as hydro-electric stations. Indeed, the steady, permanent employment provided for Scots miners by the use of coal-burning thermal stations is large and highly beneficial. It is estimated in the Mackenzie Report that the big thermal stations which they suggest should be built in the East Fife coalfields, I think, would provide permanent employment for some 10,000 men.
It may be said that there is not a great deal of unemployment in the Scottish coalfields at the present time. If that is so, it is because of an almost complete cessation of recruitment, the allowance of wastage and encouragement to people to go and look for other jobs. We want to train our young people in skilled work, and coal mining is skilled work. We are assured in this Report that there is plenty of coal to sustain these thermal stations, arid I would urge, as part of the rehabilitation of Scottish industry from an employment point of view, that the
82
Government should act quickly in accepting these recommendations made in this Report, especially so far as coal-burning thermal stations are concerned, so that the Scottish coal-mining industry can recommence to recruit and train young people, knowing that they can promise permanent employment in the future. This seems to me to be nothing more or less than plain common sense, and I cannot for the life of me understand why it is not done and done speedily. Therefore, in intervening for a few moments in this Scottish debate, I put that point forward for most urgent consideration.
6.20 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, following the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, I wish to intervene in this debate for only a very few moments on one aspect of our Scottish life which, though, strictly speaking, I suppose, is not economic, in the sense of applying to factories and other places which have been discussed, was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Todd, in his admirable maiden speech. I refer to the quality of the people of Scotland who are growing up to-day; who are being educated in our schools, in our technical colleges and universities, and who are going to be the people upon whom the responsibility of all this great efficiency, which the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, has so rightly stressed, is going to fall. I believe that it is tremendously important that we should look not only at the material side of our Scottish life but also at the side of the training of our young people, the education and social services. It is for that reason that, for a very few moments, I should like to draw attention to this aspect and to ask the Minister one or two questions with which I hope he will be able to help.
To begin with, there are a great many encouraging things about Scottish education at the present moment—and I am speaking now as chairman of an education committee of a rural county, responsible for ordinary State schools, to which the big majority of children go at the present time. There are to-day far more children studying at school after the age of 15 than there has ever been. In 1956, 31,000 children stayed

83
at school after the age of 15; to-day, there are 50,932 children still at school after the age of 15, an increase of 64 per cent. I think that is a very encouraging sign. It means that people are taking an interest in equipping their children for the technical age.
There has been introduced into the junior secondary schools—and I should like to congratulate the Government and the Scottish Education Department on this step—the new ordinary grade examination; and that has led to a great increase in the number of children taking that certificate. The number has gone up from 18,000, the total when it was started, to 43,000 in 1962. Although that is not a qualification of very high character, it does mean that children in schools are staying on and taking the trouble to do a certificate course; and that is very encouraging indeed.
In Scotland we are also to some extent free from what I understand in England is the great bogy of the 11-plus examination. That is due, first of all, to the fact that our children transfer from primary schools to the junior and senior secondary schools at the age of 12. Secondly, the transfer is done, apparently more successfully, by the transfer boards, and there is much less dissatisfaction. That is also, I think, a very good thing. The junior secondary school has a curriculum which is geared to try to fit a child for an environment in which it is living and is not academic, in the sense of leading on to academic certificate courses. But it is a very important aspect of our education that in these schools there is the greatest shortage of teachers. I hope that the Government will take this question up very seriously, because if we are going to obtain the full benefit of the junior secondary schools we must get more teachers into these schools.
In the senior schools again we are encouraged, because the standard is going up, as well as the number of children who stay on to take these further courses and who go to technical institutions and on to universities. This raising of the level of examinations, particularly the advanced level examination which is at the moment being discussed, and which I understand will be of great importance in the training of the young to-day, will also be of very
84
great help. All these advances, which are improving the quality of the young people who are going to work in all these factories we have been discussing, are excellent.
Furthermore, we have done quite a good job in the rehousing of children, in that 50 per cent. of the school population to-day is housed in new schools. Again, I should like to congratulate the Government, because I think that is a good proportion. Moreover, it makes a great deal of difference both to the teachers and to the children. We have, in fact, spent £1 million on new schools since the war; and that is a very good thing indeed. But there are one or two things which are not quite so good, and perhaps the Minister might consider these, because although we in Scotland have not had the kind of report which came out the other day on the condition of schools in England, I can testify from my own experience to the fact that in rural areas there are still old buildings; and the fact that none of the sanitation in the schools is inside is quite a serious problem. Certainly, it is a very serious problem in the weather we have been having recently, when all the lavatory accommodation which is outside has frozen. That is a matter I think the Government might look at; to improve some of the old school buildings and their accommodation. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to that point.
It is also of great importance to get more teachers in the primary schools. It is extremely difficult to get teachers for primary schools, yet what an important thing it is! Because if there is a really intelligent and delightful primary school teacher from the word "Go", the child is then interested in learning; whereas, how many children have been put off because in the primary schools there were far too many children in the classes and far too few teachers? And the teachers have the heart knocked out of them by what they have to tackle. I should like to appeal, if such a matter is possible in your Lordships' Chamber, to those boys and girls who are benefiting from the great improvement in our educational system to look upon teaching as one profession to which they might well turn; to become teachers when they leave school. It is extremely important that we should get more teachers for our Scottish

85
schools because, unless we do, we shall not be able to keep up, and, I hope, improve, the standard. I do not know whether it is a fact that conditions and salaries are not good enough. Certainly negotiations are always in prospect; but I do not think it is entirely that. I think it is that we want the whole community to care so much about education that people feel it is really a worthwhile profession to go into.
Perhaps I might also draw the Minister's attention to one other aspect of our economy, in the sense of the prosperity and happiness of the community in which we all live. We have another service to do with children, the Child Care Service, which is also absolutely essential. It is doing a fine job; it is doing what it can in difficult circumstances. And one of the difficult circumstances is that new responsibilities are placed upon the Child Care Service in the Bill that we are to debate in your Lordships' House to-morrow; and I am sure that another Bill will come up for Scotland at some time. For child care officers we have in Scotland no proper training; no professional status. They are paid lamentable salaries; local authorities, on the whole, treat the children's departments as a sort of Cinderella. I believe that that is a very great pity indeed.
I should like to see in Scotland a proper training scheme for children's officers, with proper salaries and professional status, so that local authorities have to employ people with knowledge and skill for what is a very difficult profession, since they axe dealing all the time with deprived children, foster parents, adoptions, broken families—all problems which make for unhappiness in the community, an unhappiness which spreads throughout any industrial area. The salaries paid to these officers are disgracefully low. They are not even comparable to those of teachers or probation officers. They are, in fact, much too low, and it is essential that the Scottish Office should look at this situation and try to produce some suggestions to remedy it. I am Chairman of the Advisory Council for Child Care for Scotland, and we have been fighting this battle about training, professional status and so on, for these people. But it is a long struggle, and we cannot get the powers-that-be to take the interest in it
86
that they should. If we could do that, I think that the local authorities would have to look into this matter and see that they had fully trained and good people for this very important job.
There are other shortages in our social services which again, thinking of the importance of the happiness of the whole community, we ought 'to look for and to beware of. Local authorities throughout the country are starting homes for old people—and very important homes they are, too; and very successful. Children's homes also are being started. There is a desperate shortage of all kinds of trained and semi-trained domestic workers to staff these places. In some areas the shortage is acute, and, of course, it applies to hospitals and other institutions of this kind. I should like to see the status and the importance of ordinary simple domestic work, whether it is trained or trained on the job, as many people are, given its proper importance; because without that we shall not be able to keep up our social services and social work in these various ways. I think it is extremely important.
I should like to see the senior schools, when they are making recommendations to boys and girls (I am thinking particularly of girls leaving school, who perhaps have not the academic training which will take them to the university) encouraging them to go into these other forms of community service which are so extremely important, and not just to think that distributive or other trades are good enough. I would appeal very strongly to women and girls to look upon the service they can render to the community, through social work and domestic work in the social institutions, as something of the very greatest importance.
I do not want to speak at any length. I have put one or two points which I hope the Minister of State will consider, because, although they are not closely associated with the economic situation, they are to this extent: that in the education system, in the training of our young people, in the happiness of the community, lies to some extent just what the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, was talking about, the good relations between employer and employed in the communities in which everybody is working and

87
living. This is all part of the economic situation, although it does not figure in exactly the same way. I should like to ask the Minister, when he is considering the development of Scotland, to realise that it starts at the very beginning, in the primary and secondary and technical schools, and extends right up to university. That is where we need to spend more money. We must pay more attention to, and must get more enthusiasm and more support for, this work. If that were done, I believe the development in factories and industry would benefit immensely when the population came to maturity and went to work in these various factories. I beg to support the Motion which the noble Lord has introduced.
6.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, before making my few remarks, may I associate myself with other noble Lords who have spoken in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Todd, on a most excellent and convincing maiden speech. I think that Scotland owes much to the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) for all that it has done, and is doing, to improve the Scottish economy, and we owe much to its Chairman, Lord Polwarth, for having put down this Motion in your Lordships' House to-day and for expounding the problems which Scotland has to meet at the present time. I would not venture to criticise the work of a body so experienced in guiding industry and employment. But as the noble Lord's Motion has laid stress on the distribution of industry, I should like just to refer to one aspect of that problem, because to me as a countryman it seems one of major importance.
Although Scotland's population is rising—not very fast, but it is rising; I think it has risen some 82,000 since the Census of 1951—we still have the extraordinary situation where four-fifths of the population of Scotland are living and working in the narrow industrial belt: either there or in the major cities in the country. They work and live there because that is where the best chances of good employment lie. And yet we have the other side of the picture; we have the extraordinary situation where many of the rural counties
88
are suffering a decline in their population. This is always a sad thing to see, because I believe that the old tradition of rural community life is something which is of great value and should not be lightly cast aside. Cannot we spread out a little more? Of course we must deal first with the major problem of unemployment in the big industrial areas. That is vital. We must see that is done. But cannot we make a little more employment in the country as well, always remembering of course the very important point that the kind of employment must be appropriate to its surroundings? After all every job is a job, whether it is in the Forth-Clyde belt, Greenock or Grangemouth or a remote Highland glen.
What sort of industries are appropriate to the country? I do not believe that farming in the South can absorb a great deal more. We have come to the position now when wages are so high that farmers cannot afford to pay them and are going in more and more for mechanisation. But Scotland is a land of incomparable scenery and I would point to the rather obvious industry of tourism first, because I believe that herein lie very great possibilities which even our own climate seems unable to stem. This is a rapidly expanding industry which the Scottish Tourist Board reckon might in five years' time be worth about £100 million. At any rate we see the figures, which show an increase of £30 million spent by tourists in Scotland since 1956; from £50 million spent in 1956 we have come to a figure of £80 million spent in 1960, and it was probably even more last year.
But, of course, we must not lag behind other countries in providing the facilities which the visitor may reasonably expect to enjoy. I believe that the Scottish Tourist Board are fully alive to the problems involved; but they cannot do everything and they must have some practical help. First of all, we want better communications, particularly in the Highlands. I was glad to hear the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, mention roads and what has been done to improve the roads in Scotland. But we must have roads in the north, in the Highlands, as well as in the south. Roads and ferries must be improved, because nowadays people are not content, as they used to

89
be, to wait for half an hour to cross a narrow strip of water.
Then at present the season in Scotland is quite short. It must, and I believe can, be extended, as it is, for example, in the case of the ski-ing season in the Cairngorms. When it is extended it will be worth while for private enterprise to build more and better accommodation for tourists. Noble Lords may well ask, who is going to pay? That is quite a reasonable question. As regards finance, the public services would have to be looked after by the Government, as nobody else can do that. Individual enterprises would have to be responsible for their own finance. That I think is reasonable. But the common local
amenities can, I believe, be properly provided only by the local authorities concerned. As these scenic districts usually have a low rateable value, I personally can see no objection whatever to a local tourist tax, an optional tax by the local authority concerned. I know that taxes are not popular, but this would be so infinitesimal—a levy of 6d. to Is. per person per night—that it would really not be noticeable at all; and it is reckoned that it would bring half a million pounds a year into the Scottish industry. That is not a negligible amount at all. Such has been recommended by the Scottish Tourist Board and many other responsible bodies, and surely it deserves some serious consideration, particularly when we think that many continental countries employ this particular method of raising a useful amenity fund with great success. Certainly many of them, I regret to say, can teach us a good lesson in litter-mindedness. So much for tourism.
Another potential source of employment in country districts is the utilisation of timber and its products. I am not going to delve into the subject of forestry, because this is not a forestry debate. I would only say that the forestry industry is capable of enormous expansion. Not so long ago an Under-Secretary of State stated in another place:
"I need hardly say that forestry, especially in Scotland, is one of our major industries."
Then, again, we have the Chairman of the Scottish Woodlands Association, who wrote a most excellent article in The Times this month, which no doubt many of your Lordships read, in which he stated:
90
"If the target of five million acres is achieved, there is a possibility of some 200,000 jobs being supported by forestry alone. This, in Scotland, would be a Godsend."
But forestry can be a major industry only if the trees grown can be readily and profitably converted for industrial purposes into timber, board, pulp, plastics, cellulose products, chemicals, dyes or whatever you will. The uses to which we were accustomed to put timber are now becoming out of date, and a hundred new ways are being found. There will always, I believe, be a demand for wood so long as it is one of the required species and is properly grown, for, unlike most of these raw materials, wood is inexhaustible and can reproduce itself in a generation. We have the vision of a pulp mill to be built near Fort William which, it is said, is to consume ten million cubic feet of timber annually. How many this pulp mill will employ does not seem to be quite certain; some say hundreds, some say thousands, but at least it will give a lot of employment and I welcome it as a real sign of an integration between forestry and industry. It is a beginning.
I sincerely hope that much more will follow, for I, and I am sure many other noble Lords interested in wood, should like to see more and more industrial forest centres which might be made use of by both State and private tree growers in various parts of Scotland. The Forestry Commission has, I believe, a fine research branch—second to none, I am told—Which has many technical gains to its credit. But I often wonder whether we could not achieve a much closer liaison between the growers of timber and those who wish to make use of its products. Surely this would benefit employment in many industries which forestry can support. My Lords, I have no more to say. I believe that the two points that I have mentioned have a considerable bearing on the Scottish economy. But, above all (things, it seems to me vital that Scotland should have a more equitable distribution of her industries and population.
6.47 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords. I do not want to take up a great deal of your Lordships' time at this rather late hour, as a great deal of what I was going to say has been said by other speakers and therefore I do not propose to repeat it.

91
But there are just one or two points I should like to make, the first of which arises from the very good maiden speech which we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Todd. I should like to add my congratulations to the many which have been given to him on that speech. He spoke about the value of technological and university education. I should like to take that point a little further because I think I am right in saying that the number of students taking technological courses, either by night study or by day release from work, is considerably smaller in Scotland than it is in England. I have seen some figures quoted to the effect that, whereas the number of students in England and Wales doing this work for their higher National certificate is something in the neighbourhood of 20 per cent., in Scotland it is only just over half that figure, something between 11 and 12 per cent. I wonder whether that sort of study could not be encouraged, because I am sure the noble Lord is quite right in saying that if you can get more people doing that sort of work it would be good for the Scottish economy in general.
I think the same thing applies to the number of children who remain on at school at the ages of fifteen, sixteen and seventeen. So far as I can remember, the figures for Scotland do not compare at all favourably with those for England and Wales. Again, that seems to me an extraordinary thing to happen now, because not so long ago Scotland was extremely proud of its educational system and of the number who were getting a full education in Scotland: more people were getting a full education there than in the South. One wonders whether that aspect is something that could be encouraged, and whether more of that work could not be made available for these young people to do.
Then, one wonders whether possibly there is not a need in Scotland for a new university. It seems a very strange thing that, while in England we are building something like five or six new universities, in Scotland, so far as I know, there does not seem to be a project to build one. Those we have there already are certainly very large. When a university becomes too big, with too many undergraduates, it tends to lose
92
its value. One has seen these enormous universities in America, some of which cater for 17,000 to 24,000 people, and the place becomes so impersonal and so vague that no one knows what is going on, and I do not think this serves the best kind of purpose. I wonder whether it would not be possible for new university projects to be encouraged in Scotland.
My Lords, I should like to mention building and public works programmes. I may be wrong about this, and if I am, perhaps I shall be corrected, but although there has been a Hospital Plan for England and Wales, I have not seen one for Scotland. I think this is very strange because the hospitals in Scotland are just as much in need of modernisation as are those in England.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, there is in fact a Hospital Plan for Scotland.
LORD AMULREE: Then I can come on to my second point. I would hope the Plan might be put into operation much more quickly than was originally intended, and that, rather than wait ten years, we try to aim at a period of five years.
Then, again, there are too many areas in Scotland where local water supplies are extremely bad, and one would have thought that schemes for the improvement of water supplies would assist in the total employment picture. In the part of Scotland in which I lived for a long time the water supply was extremely inadequate, and, because it was a sparsely populated part of the country, the value of a 1d. rate was not such that very much could be done by the local authorities. I think that this is a point which might certainly be considered.
One enormously important thing in a prosperous economy is a really good and efficient transport system, and it is here that Scotland seems to lag some way behind England—I agree that we are not very good in England on this score, but I think that in Scotland there has not been so much done as there might have been. I should like to give another example of daft planning. At the present time we are building a road bridge across the Forth; we then propose to build a road bridge across the Tay, and that traffic, so far as I know,

93
is still going out into the bottleneck of Edinburgh because no firm plan has yet been made for a ring road or bypass. We discussed this matter at some length a short time ago, and much play was made of the wonderful circular thing around Edinburgh called "the ring route". It is not a ring road, but a ring route. It crosses six or seven main roads, and seems to serve no purpose at all except to make people more frustrated and annoyed. If we are going to keep the traffic moving and to improve the road from Edinburgh to the north, we must have some provision for traffic to by-pass Edinburgh, otherwise there cannot be a proper link with the south, which is one of the important things trying to be achieved.
One has heard—and I hope they are not true—certain melancholy 'things said about the railways in the Highlands, and that they do not really provide an economic service that pays its way. That is possibly true, 'but they are a public service, and I do not know whether there is going to be any question of shutting them down. I think that they should be maintained, and possibly expanded. In Norway, for example, they have areas of a similar sort where the railways run at a considerable deficit, but in that country they realise that they are run as a public service. They are not cutting them down, but in fact are thinking of expanding them. If you are going to improve your economy, surely it is very important to make your transport as good as possible, because that is an encouragement to manufacturers and other people.
My Lords, because of the unemployment in Scotland at the moment there is a certain amount of surplus labour, labour which will be available for some time. One knows quite well that some of the European countries, particularly Western Germany, have very big shortages of manpower and have to import people from Italy to do normal day-to-day work. I am not suggesting for a moment that we should export the Scottish population to Western Germany, but I suggest that one ought to do as much as one can to encourage West German factories and businesses to put up branches in Scotland, which will be good for them and good for the economy of Scotland in' general. It is something which has already been done up to a
94
point, but it seems a form of creating employment which might be encouraged a great deal more. This is nothing to do with whether or not we join the Common Market, but I should like to put that forward as a third idea of something which might be done quite quickly to absorb some of this unemployment. I feel that, with the 'best will in the world, no plan can be made which will absorb it immediately, and we therefore have to take a large number of measures which will play their part in assisting to bring back work to Scotland once again.
6.57 p.m.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: My Lords, more than anyone I am always delighted to hear my noble friend and kinsman, Lord Polwarth, speaking for Scotland, and to recognise the ability with which he works for Scotland on these occasions. I would ask the Government to support the proposals for employment and industrial prosperity in Scotland in every helpful way they can. With all the international and financial problems which exist all around us, there is naturally a call to the Government in many specific ways. We in Scotland must also show that we will continuously do our best in this situation.
I should like for a moment or two to follow the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, who I was pleased to see drew attention with his usual charm and ability, to the more rural activities of Scotland. Although forestry does not immediately provide a large increase in employment, it would be right for anyone concerned with the use and development of land to draw attention to the opportunities there. With the changes in farming that have taken place, with the number of farms steadily falling, the expansion of forestry is the only other way—and it is an excellent way—to keep families in the countryside and make fuller use of our natural resources in the land. The more I have listened to the suggestions this afternoon, the more it seems to me that much can be done, at less outlay, by the natural utilisation of the land to assist in solving our problems in Scotland both at the present time and in the future.
The points in the debate apply even more strongly to forestry—in the way of

95
expansion by the State and by woodland owners to provide new employment and to create new national wealth in conjunction with the new forests being grown by the State. While we should endeavour to keep the numbers in farming as high as possible, and while more upland in Scotland is being brought into permanent economic activity, forestry as a complementary industry can supplement this by a much more extensive use of land better suited for growing trees. I would ask the Government not to overlook the chance of a much larger contribution in this way. The Forestry Commission and the woodland owners working side by side, have already made a tremendous effort since the war and valuable progress has been made.
My noble friend reminded us just now that this is not an occasion for a debate on forestry, but I hope that your Lordships will allow me to make one or two points to justify our claims. Because, though it may appear that there is less demand for timber as it is being displaced from certain of its former uses, this is, in fact, not so: the total consumption of timber, in Britain and elsewhere, continues to go up year by year, and the demand is always increasing. Unfortunately for those growing timber here, the imports have increased faster during the last two years, and home-grown timber, including that grown by the State, has been difficult to sell. I hope that it will be remembered that only 8 per cent. of our timber requirements are provided from British forests, and that over £200 million is spent annually in foreign exchange. It will be realised how much our balance of payments can be improved. The nation already has a big investment in timber, and many more trees are needed now to take full advantage of this, to enable timber merchants to modernise their plant and equipment, and to justify the establishment of more up-to-date wood-using industries in this country, and to make both economic. The two go together, and between them can help employment and can make good a serious omission in our economy, as has been done by Bowaters, on the Mersey, and as is about to be done at Fort William, where a prospective pulp factory is of the greatest importance for the Highlands.
96
It may be felt that the British taxpayer has been spending large sums of money on growing good timber but is apparently getting a very small return for the expenditure. I think that to some extent this is a serious matter, and that the taxpayer is justified in expecting a larger return on what is now sold by the Forestry Commission, and what is sold also, with great difficulty, by the ordinary woodland owner. I hope, therefore, that the question of the marketing of timber will be looked into a little more thoroughly at the highest levels.
In that connection, I would ask that forestry be treated as a national industry in the future much more than it has been in the past, both by Governments and by other industries. Home-grown timber should have an equal priority and an equal value if it is of equal quality. Often British timber is of equal quality but, because it is home-grown, is denied an equal demand and is sold for a lower price. Your Lordships may read of a well-known industry in Scotland being horrified if a foreign firm, or even an English firm, is allowed to tender, whereas an industry using wood is apt to ask for imported timber, and accepts British at lower prices only if imported is not available. I hope that this situation can gradually be changed, and there is good reason for doing that. I think we should remember also that the quality of imported timber is no longer necessarily as good as it used to be, or as good as that which is home-grown.
If we are to have an expansion of forestry it is essential to have more housing where the houses are needed. Attention was drawn earlier to-day to the need for more and better housing in Scotland, and if new houses are to be built in different places it is just as well that a proportion should be built in country districts near to places where an expansion of forestry is possible. A family will always be found to occupy them if they are on or near a bus route, with electricity and hot water. But it should be remembered that in forestry, unlike other industries, the owner, whether a woodland owner or the Forestry Commission, has always to provide a house, and a good house, well-suited, in order to get a forester. In other industries that additional capital charge is not borne in the same way. I hope that, when housing, which was

97
raised earlier, is being considered as a result of this debate, this side of the matter will not be overlooked.
My Lords, in concluding I would say that there have been many recommendations for an expansion of forestry, by the Zuckerman Committee in a Report a few years ago, by others since, and by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. I aim also reminded that grants and charges for forestry under private ownership in this country are low compared to those in other countries, and I am quite sure that this is a worthwhile industry to which more attention could be given.
7.7 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, so many eminent speakers have dealt with the quarter of Scotland in the industrial belt that for a short while I want to deal with the other three-quarters of Scotland, a quarter of which, roughly speaking, is inhabited by—again, very roughly speaking—onetenth of the population. Figures like that are very rough and are only indicative, and I think they show that the amount the Scottish Council have done for us is simply terrific. Obviously, their first, pre-occupation must be with the nine-tenths of the population who do not live in the really difficult areas. We in these areas have always been credited in the past with an independent spirit; we paddle our own canoe, and we have got along all right. It may be asked: "Why are you worrying now?" Perhaps we are suffering from a slight overdose of welfare; I do not know. That is a possibility. Nevertheless, that spirit is still there.
I live close to a very small burgh in one of these parts. Last year when the weather was like it is at present a clerk who is employed by the local bank was caught in Aberdeen in a blizzard and no bus could get through. He wanted to get back to this burgh by next day, so he just walked. It was as easy as that. Then we have very fine youth services. I cannot resist bringing this point up, because our Sea Cadets won the championship of Scotland and defeated Dundee into second place. They are now competing for the United Kingdom trophy. For a burgh with a population of under 5,000, that is not a bad effort. So the youths and the lads are there. I
98
want to see jobs for them, not in running England; I want them to run Scotland for a change.
Our education has been mentioned. We have an academy there—a very fine academy indeed. I personally owe a debt of gratitude to that academy. I was coached there long ago by the rector for my common entrance exam into Eton. He dared me to get in. He said, "A silly little boy like you? You are so stupid you will never get anywhere." Well, I did. That is the kind of men you have. To show how we assimilate things, I may mention that last year a tenant of mine, an old man of 73—he was a Belgian who was wounded in the war before last, settled there and recovered, and who now runs a business in the town—thought it would be a good thing to show people he could walk from Land's End to John o' Groats without batting an eyelid, and he did. The spirit is there all right: all that is needed is a slight shove in the right direction.
Therefore, perhaps for a very few moments I might dwell on some of the difficulties one comes up against when one tries to help in pushing the expanding industries—of a very limited nature, of course, because they must be on a very small scale. There are local industries there; some of them are relatively flourishing, and others are contracting. Why expand an industry if you are doing very nicely as it is and, if you do expand, you run into difficulties? You can market the things you are making in the numbers you are making them without any real cost, but the moment you start making more than that, the moment you take on a bigger show, you have all the difficulties of marketing and you have all the problems of running a bigger show—and what rewards do you get? The reward is remarkably little more, if more at all, than you are getting already. What is more, people grow older, and I know that as I grow older I grow more idle; and I am afraid a great number of people are just the same as I am. I think there is a great deal to be said for the argument that if you are going to take a risk with your money, if you are going to invest your capital in a risky project, you ought to be able to get a comparable reward for doing so. The Bible says:
"Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn".

99
I think there is a very great deal in that; and the nigger in the wood pile, as usual, is, I am afraid, the Treasury.
Nevertheless, there are some other ways in which I think we ought to help ourselves more than we do, and where I think we can. In our special circumstances it is useless for each small borough to try on its own to catch an industrialist. Just like fishing, you flick over your pool where you think the industrialist is swimming along and, if you are lucky, you strike one. You strike him, you play him, and you take him up. If you can get him up to have a look, you feast him and take him round. Then you find all the other people at once trying to pinch him off you. The scrapping is simply terrific. In the end, the industrialist gets off, just like most of the fish in Scotland. We must get together—and if anybody thinks that easy, I would invite him to come and try to get the Aberdeen County Council and Aberdeen City to sit round the same table, or even go into the same room, and he will see that he has "got another think coming". However, there it is; it has got to be done.
Moreover, I think we must consider our own particular part. Scotland has been described by the optimists, among whom I am, as a springboard to Europe. We have wonderful port facilities, and are nearer to the middle of Europe than to London—nearer to Hamburg, at any rate. We have to get together; we must do it on an area basis; we must, in some way, plan it; we must know where we are going: and industry must change. Industry has changed in the past. If you read the statistical account you will find that Aberdeen developed on the textile industry, that the granite trade came in only recently and that shipbuilding has been going on there for a long time. Some of the great days of the shipyards in Aberdeen were the clipper days, when the "Thermopylae", among others, was built in Aberdeen. The "Cutty Sark" was built around the coast a bit. These were the great days of shipbuilding. But we still have great yards. Our particular desperate plight as regards unemployment has been averted, because those yards have secured a very good order to start them off again; but it is a hand-to-mouth existence.
100
It might be advantageous if I were to mention one or two snags, showing why some fish have got off. We had a company which was interested in Scots pine. They made a Scots-pine-with-cement building slab. It was a very good slab, used a lot by an English company. They were pleased with the site, with the prospects and with everything else. Then it came to the question of cement. The Cement Marketing Company will deliver cement in Aberdeen at a special rate, because most of the cement going to Aberdeen—I cannot remember the figure, but it is several thousands tons a month—goes by sea, though a good deal goes by rail in Presflo wagons. I wanted them to give us the Presflo wagons (we are on the main line) in the station there. The railways were keen to have the traffic. It was an order of 6,000 to 7,000 tons a year; it was not nothing. The price was 10s. a ton higher in Stonehaven, which is sixteen or seventeen miles south of Aberdeen, than it was in Aberdeen, but if one went into Aberdeen and fetched it out one could have it at the same price. The industrialist went off and said, "Really!" There you are. I am an optimist, but if you are going to do that kind of thing, why try?
That was one fish that got off: I will now talk about another that got off. I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, about this. He has not had time to reply to my letter, and I was therefore not going to mention it, but I said before the debate started that I would mention it, subject to the fact that he has not had time to look at it and go into it. I think the points are correct. This was a matter between our local authority and Edinburgh. We had an industrialist who came along and wished to put up a small factory next door to a showroom which he had already got, but that part of the countryside was zoned for recreational purposes; it was right on the edge of it. That meant a change in town planning. There was a good deal of argument on the side, which occupied a week or so—a reasonable length of time. The matter was then sent to Edinburgh. Now, to the best of my belief—I hope the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, but I have had no chance to investigate it further; I sent him copies of the official correspondence—it was the better part of three months before anybody from Edinburgh took any part in the thing at

101
all. In the meantime, the industrialist just said, "You cannot run a business like this, and I am not coming; I am sorry". If we are to get industry into these difficult parts of Scotland we must be a team; we must all play together. I hope—in fact, I know—that the noble Lord will take this matter up. If I am wrong, I apologise to him, but I am sure I am not wrong basically, though I may be wrong in detail.
Then there are a few other points which I thought might be worth mentioning. We had some figures about what the aid would amount to per man employed. The figure produced by one noble Lord was about £200. If we look at it from the other point of view it is an interesting figure. Roughly speaking, if by mechanisation a farmer can displace a man for one year, it is worth his while to spend £5,000 on equipment.
I should like an answer on another point which cropped up concerning our effort to attract industry. Suppose a local authority says, "If the Board of Trade will put up a factory and let it to us, we can let it to an industrialist." Can that local authority qualify for aid from the Board of Trade? Nobody was able to tell me the answer to that. This was a little time ago and I hope that is now being thought of. It is important because very often the local authority are the chief contact; they own the sites, et cetera. It is just possible that, were we able to have that assistance, we could attract industry into that part of the world. I should like to congratulate the Board of Trade. They have translated into German their pamphlet which I believe is called "Make it in Britain". I thought that was an excellent move, and I have read that there was a very large distribution of that pamphlet in West Germany. I think that is all to the good, because I know that several firms in West Germany were interested in coming to our part of the world, and they still are. Of course, these things take a great deal of time.
I must refer a little to forestry. Forestry has been talked about. The pulp mill which we understand is coming along is being built in the best place for the purpose. Nobody will complain about that. But there is a road haul which could be cut by something like 60 or 70 miles if the Glenfeshie scheme
102
were put through. This would be a very great advantage to the tourist trade and would open up a great deal of Donside and that part of the forest; in fact it could even get through to the forests on that side of Scotland. Not only that, but the paper mills at the moment are situated largely on the Dee and Don in Aberdeen. It is cheaper for transport to come back with a return load, say by carrying logs one way and pulp the other, although there would be only a limited amount of this. It seems to me high time that we had this scheme completed. There is a lot of local opposition, but it is one of the old droving roads and the Government should overcome the difficulties here and get things done.
There is one other thing that surprises me in talking about industry. I do not think anybody has mentioned the industry which is by a long way the biggest, and that is agriculture. There is a crying need for better marketing arrangements for grain, for grain-handling, and I would say the same thing goes for meat and meat marketing. These are natural industries which should be thought of as very suitable for these difficult places and which are not suitable for the industrial belt. Nevertheless, there are abattoirs and such places in the industrial development areas. They are in the wrong place. Agriculture is the kind of industry you can—I was going to say, with a clear conscience—really push in the right direction in our part of the world.
One other point is that during the difficult transition period of the timber industry, there is a lot of small wood of inferior quality, because while every effort is made to grow good timber, one must cut out the worst timber and sell it. The point is that you do not cut out the best quality timber but the worst, and yet you must sell it. In the early stages you have nothing else to sell. There are two uses which could be explored, but in the early stages they require a little sympathy and help from Her Majesty's Government. One is block board. Aberdeen is ideally situated for making this, because the two outside skins can be imported from Finland. It is a kind of three ply board and the quality of the part in the middle does not matter, so long as it is wood, because it gets no stress; our own home-grown timber would be adequate. But nobody in this country uses block

103
board and therefore there would be heavy marketing expenses in the first five or six years, perhaps longer, for any company taking it up. Her Majesty's Government could help here.
The other use that has not fully been gone into is that of laminated timber. People may say that this is nothing new in this country. That is perfectly true. You may also tell me—and again it is true—that most firms in America who tried using it have gone broke. The reason is that you must have a run of standard articles: you probably will go broke if you make one particular thing, but if you make standard articles well it can be profitably used. It is a magnificent medium for making the brace frame for a Dutch barn and farm buildings, and it is far lighter than concrete. Local material could be used for parts of the structure, with inferior material where no stress is taken. That is all I want to say on this important subject, except to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Todd, on a magnificent speech, and also the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, for initiating this debate.
7.29 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, my first contribution to this debate is to make apologies to your Lordships on behalf of my noble friend Lord Gosford who has had to keep a long-standing engagement and who has asked me to make some points, about roads particularly, which he had it in mind to make. I do this gladly, and more especially as the points accord with my own personal view. He, as I do, congratulates the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, on the robust efforts at self-help which have been shown by the Scottish Council in the matter of attracting industry to Scotland At the same time I would congratulate the noble Lord on his statement at the annual general meeting of the Council and the speech he made to-day leading up to this valuable debate. That, in a measure, stems from the Toothill Report, which has attracted so much merited attention.
The point which my noble friend and I would draw to your Lordships' special attention is the Committee's call for the removal of the delays and uncertainties in transport to the South, accepting that that would call for increased expenditure on trunk roads.
104
In this respect, reference may well be made to the statement made by my right honourable friend Mr. Boyd-Carpenter, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in the debate in another place on the White Paper, to which the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has referred. My right honourable friend said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 668 (No. 21), col. 220]:
"…if we can improve road communications in areas that suffer from unemployment, the benefit from that is not so much the employment directly given by the road projects as the much more substantial and permanent benefit to be derived for making the areas more attractive and more likely to attract industrialists to settle permanently there."
I quote that section of his speech because it links up in a measure with what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said in his most attractive speech this afternoon.
Accepting that much has been done, we think it is not unreasonable to say that it is clear that there is a great deal more to be done; and in that sense my noble friend has drawn attention to the statement in the Scottish Council's policy that
"…a greater sense of urgency and drive is still needed."
over the whole field of road communications for the purpose of improving Scotland's economic situation. It is easy to say that, but do the means permit? It is possible to point out that the Treasury is the source of the wherewithal from which such developments will stem, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, pointed out, to say that Scotland's proportion is roughly the same as what England spends on roads is not a fair comparison. It cannot necessarily be held that what is spent on roads in England is the right amount.
I am sure that I am right in recalling that when the report on the South Wales and Monmouthshire road situation was debated in your Lordships' House the findings of that examination were to the effect that a good deal of development could be done with advantage to the area outwith the plans which the Government already had in hand. Would it perhaps be prudent to call for a similar assessment of the needs of Scotland, particularly in the industrial belt? Such a survey, if it were undertaken, would almost certainly indicate further directions in which road communications could be improved.

105
I feel that we can congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, in initiating this debate. At the same time, I feel that there is a great deal of praise due to Government for the manner in which they have faced the problems with the means they deem to have at their command. My noble friend Lord Craigton, the Minister of State, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, are right, I believe, when they put the first priority so far as roads are concerned, on the duplication of A.8, though, in my view, in doing that they have not gone far enough.
I was particularly glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, draw attention, from another angle, to the importance to the whole flow of road traffic in central Scotland of a by-pass for Edinburgh. I feel no shame in mentioning the matter again in your Lordships' House at this moment, when the hard weather we have been having has interfered so heavily with traffic over the Southern Uplands. Despite the massive expenditure on A.74, the fact remains that Bowes Moor has been closed for ten days and inevitably industrial traffic has been diverted through the bottleneck of Edinburgh. Not only has Scotland's ancient city been flooded with through-traffic, but other cities, perhaps not so noble, have also been flooded with through traffic which could well be diverted from main road to main road.
That brings me to the question of amenity. I am thinking of the need to preserve Edinburgh, particularly the new town and its whole character, from being simply a stopping place for through-traffic. It is true that good roads of all classes provide 'amenity, which has a bearing on this problem of Scotland's economy. It may not seem to have great importance, but I believe that the problem is not only what the Toothill Committee referred as "the need for making personal contacts in a country where distances are great". Admittedly, roads contribute to that, and in a measure the Committee are correct in saying that we are not troubled in, Scotland with roads jammed with traffic, as they are in the South. At the same time, it is fair to say that the time will come when this volume of traffic will increase.
I believe that in the industries which are developing in Scotland, not only in
106
the industrial belt but also elsewhere, we have to bear in mind that to the workers, both labourers and white-coated workers, reliable and swift transport to and from work is important, because it is linked in some measure with the problem of housing. Further than that, despite what has been said, it is not certain that all housing areas provide such acceptable accommodation for the white-coated workers, the technicians and their families, as is available in South-Eastern England; and When climatic conditions are against them it is important to such workers and their families that markets, shops, schools, entertainments, and even sport, should be readily accessible by good roads in all weathers and all the year round.
The proportion of technical workers is increasing in terms of all employees of industry as the old heavy industries develop into the light industries of today. I pause in my speech here because my mind goes at once to the fascinating maiden speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Todd, on this very question of the incidence and importance of the white-coated workers in the industry of Scotland to-day and the reasons why they are so inclined to leave the country. The investigation of the Toothill Committee showed that, by and large, in terms of income, for the young married, say, of the age of 28 or 35, conditions of pay differ but slightly as between Scotland and England, if a little to the disadvantage of Scotland. Is it possible that this problem of amenity, in terms of road communication and housing, also has a strong bearing upon this problem of the inclination to stay in Scotland or to go abroad?—and when I say "abroad", I include England, because of the 24,000 annual emigration to the South only some 50 per cent. go abroad. Another contribution to the debate which has a bearing on this is what the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, said in regard to providing amenities for teachers in Scotland. There again is a type of what I might call white-coated workers who deserve and demand amenity if they are to remain in their native country.
I now turn to a quite separate matter (I apologise to your Lordships for a somewhat rambling speech, but it is difficult to do otherwise near the end of

107
such an interesting debate) and refer to the question of air services. This is a point that has not yet been mentioned in the debate. It is important not only that there should be readily available air services between Scotland and London but that there should be available air services direct from Scotland to the Continent. This should always be borne in mind. As the Toothill Report says, and as my noble friend Lord Polwarth said, this problem of air transport direct from Scotland to potential customers is one which might well merit the consideration of a subsidy.
If I were to criticise the Toothill Report (and it is open to criticism), it would be to say that I agree with my noble friend Lord Stonehaven that it is a little surprising that so little is mentioned in the Report of the importance of agriculture as an industry; and also, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said, that it seems to bear entirely upon the central industrial belt and not to deal with the Highland's clamant need for reliable transport both by road and rail. Because weather conditions such as we have had recently make it manifest that there are areas which must be kept open, and must be kept inhabited and provided with services which can be supplied only by the railways. I think it is fair to say that, though people pay large sums to take the Road to the Isles in the summer and the autumn, some would pay large sums not to take that road under present conditions.
That brings me to the problem of migration. As a member of the Migration Board, I should like to say in no uncertain terms that the Committee are right in deploring the absence from the Government records of statistics of air-borne migrants. This is a failure which makes any study of the figures necessarily almost theoretical, and it is a grievous shortcoming in our statistics. Incidentally, in my view the ebb and flow of the Prestwick—Montreal traffic, of which no record is kept other than can be culled from the Labour Department's returns or from Canada, is a subject which deserves considerable study and might reveal important seasonal migration between Scotland and Canada. The fact is that Scotsmen, as the noble Lord, Lord Todd, said, are
108
probably the most important Scottish export, if not in a financial sense; and, as he said again, the trouble is that it is often the most enterprising who emigrate. Here perhaps I may refer to a note in the Toothill Report: that the Committee:
"could find no connection between unemployment and emigration rates."
As I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Todd, it seemed to me that there were slightly different tacks here. Whereas, certainly in recent years, the pressure of unemployment has not necessarily had a bearing on emigration figures—nor have they been related—I think it is fair to say that the pressure on technicians has been such that the best ones go: it is the quality, rather than the quantity, that is being lost.
That leads me to another conjecture. Is it possible that there is a decline in the ruggedness of the Scottish character, especially in the industrial belt? This is a matter of self-criticism, but I think it is fair to deduce that this may be due to the bitter experience of the 'thirties; the long decline in the coal industry, with the hours and days of enforced idleness; the increased dependence on the rented house, often at a rent which is subsidised by the taxpayer, and the pressure of restrictive practices imposed by trade unions that have contributed to a situation where a painter in Edinburgh can paint a noticeboard and refuse to put it up by putting in two screws because, he said, "That is a joiner's job".
I give that instance from my own experience, but in general terms, if we are using this debate for looking at ourselves and at the worker (we have looked at the Government, at industry and at local authorities), I think it is fair to say that in Scotland there is another economic problem that we must face; that is, the problem of the building and structural trades. There is far too much overlapping. Too often the joiner has to wait for the slater; the slater has to wait for the sweep; the sweep has to wait for the mason; the mason has to wait for the joiner; and on and on it goes. This is something that one does not have to face to the same extent in the South.
LORD SHEPHERD: Oh!
LORD FERRIER: The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, says "Oh", but if you have to wait in the South you wait for the whole contractor; you do not have to wait for the craftsman who is waiting for another craftsman to the same extent as happens in the North.
To conclude, my Lords, there is something for us all to do. In my view the Government have done a good job, but could they not do more? As I asked at the beginning of my speech, could they be given more means to do more? But as the Toothill Committee have said in their conclusions, the whole community must work together wherever the prime responsibility happens to lie. If this debate has served to stimulate interest and energy all round, then the time has been well spent.
7.50 p.m.
LORD FORBES: My Lords—I can still just say "My Lords", but there are very few present, I am afraid—probably this is the most important debate for Scotland for this decade. The question surely is: will the unemployment rate in Scotland remain twice that of England, or is Scotland to be lifted out of the rut and enjoy the same economic growth as England? I believe that the future of Scotland is as important for England as it is for Scotland herself, as one weak part of the body means that the body as a whole does not flourish. Although this is a most important debate for Scotland and, I believe, for Her Majesty's Government, it should be one of the easiest debates for Her Majesty's Government to answer. We have had very straight speaking, and I now hope that we are going to get a very straight answer from the Minister when he replies—no vague promises or hopes, just a very straight reply.
Scotland has the underlying difficulties which have been known for some time: over-dependence on heavy industry and insufficient industrial mixture. But for about a year the Government have had the remedy presented to them by the Scottish Council, whose untiring chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, introduced this debate. The Scottish Council gave Her Majesty's Government the Toothill Report. Most people with the interests of Scotland at heart are, I believe, agreed that the Toothill
110
recommendations should form the basis of recovery in Scotland. The Government have obviously read the Report, because they have issued a pamphlet called Observations by the Government on the Recommendations of the Toothill Report. Now action on that Report is required.
It was, of course, hoped that existing Government measures, mainly the Local Employment Act, would be sufficient to pull Scotland out of the rut, but now it is blatantly obvious that that is not to be the case and further measures are required. Either the Act must be amended or a new Act brought in. Whatever it is, I believe it should cover such suggestions as were made by my noble friend Lord Eccles on November 28, when he said that the Government should put up £200 million over a period of ten years to encourage economic expansion in the United Kingdom in a few selected areas where development would go on simultaneously. I believe that the policy of reinforcing success in a few areas might become contagious and spread to others. Above all, it must be possible for the Government to implement the Toothill recommendations. They must have the necessary powers. We must never forget that redeployment of industry and employment is essentially a human problem. Workers not only have to be rehoused, but also probably retrained. Possibly most important of all, the wives must be happy in their new surroundings.
Scotland must have, in the towns and in her villages, amenities which those who live in the South expect and take for granted. Our house-building programme must be given a new impetus and, above all, private developers must be encouraged to provide attractive housing estates suitably situated for industrial growth points. Then the right environment is essential, and I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Todd, in what he said about derelict areas. May I, at this moment, congratulate the noble Lord on his remarkable maiden speech? It is no good telling prospective industrialists that they can make a rubbish dump into a garden. The very sight of a horrible mess is going to put an industrialist off. How much more attractive would places like Coatbridge and Airdrie be if the squalor of long-decayed industry were cleared up?

111
Also, the old Monckland Canal is certainly not an attraction, and is a considerable danger to children.
The Toothill Report and a great many speakers this afternoon have placed great emphasis on the importance of good communications. In fact, the Toothill Report could hardly have stressed their importance more. I believe that improved communications are a first priority. Although the distances in the United Kingdom are not great compared with those in other countries, they nevertheless present barriers, mainly owing, I believe, to the location of London and to the massive concentration of industry in the Midlands and the South-East of England. We are now in the space age. Barriers, whether real or artificial, cannot be tolerated. Industrialists, naturally, like to live cheek by jowl with their fellow industrialists. This means that if an industrialist is to consider locating his factory elsewhere in the limbs of the country, he must know that he can see his fellow industrialist and return home easily that day. Of the three main types of communication, road, rail and air, I am certain that air is the one that can revolutionise the situation.
First, a brief word on railways and roads. To-day a number of railway lines are not paying their way. These, if proved vital, must be kept going by the Government. If they are not vital, they must be axed. But the money to be spent on keeping unremunerative lines open is the taxpayers' money, and it is the Government's duty to spend taxpayers' money to the best possible advantage. In this connection, we should be wise to remember that the stagecoach went into the museum because a more efficient form of transport was evolved. One day the same may happen to our railways. That day has not yet come, but nobody should have blinkers on. We must not prop up our railways and by so doing ignore newer and more efficient types of transport. Of course, the day when almost everything will be moved by air is a very long way off, and roads will be of considerable importance for a great many years—longer than any of us can foresee. A proper road system between Scotland and the South is, I believe, vital, and for this a main road of lesser
112
specification than dual carriageway will be of little use if traffic is to move at a reasonable speed—and it must move at a reasonable speed.
Therefore I find it very disappointing to know that in spite of the much publicised increased road programme for Scotland, there will be only about 32 miles of dual carriageway by the end of this year between Aberdeen and the Scottish Border. The actual figure disclosed by the Government is 16 per cent. Surely some of the slack should be taken up by increasing the road programme.
Of course, development of air travel is where the greatest impact can be made on communications. In this connection Her Majesty's Government must give a lead. First of all, an internal airline or airlines must be given an annual grant to greatly improve the services. Secondly, the public works programme should be extended and concentrated on improving airports and also building a number of airstrips which would take light planes. These light plane airstrips would serve as feeders to the main airports. So Scotland would get what I would call an air bus service. As traffic increases some of these airstrips might later be developed into airports. The aim would be to establish airstrips so that nobody on the mainland of Scotland, except where the population is very sparse, would be more than 50 miles from an airport or an airstrip. Then Scotland would truly become a land of unparalleled opportunity if the nerve centre of industry, technology and Government, at present far away, should become and remain, through good communications, just round the corner. If this could be brought about, Scotland would no longer envy the economic growth in the South-East of England. Instead, the whole situation would be changed and she would receive stimulation from the expansion in the South-East of England because she would feel close to the South-East of England.
In addition, given highly efficient and cheap air travel, I am confident that many hills and glens would get new vitality from people coming from England, where the congestion is now almost hopelessly bad, to enjoy the open parts to be found in Scotland; and many lonely Highland cottages to-day which are becoming unoccupied and left to

113
decay would be occupied, at least during the week-ends and during the holidays. Any boost to the economy, however small, must not be shut out. Scotland has the opportunities. They must be taken up. But if this is to take place Her Majesty's Government must create the right conditions. Once the Government have given the lead the Scots themselves must grasp their opportunities. I believe that every Scot must become air-minded, and this is the way to overcome the difficulties which centralisation brings in its wake. The magnetism of centralisation often leads to economies but it can also lead to the limbs of the country becoming sorely sapped of vitality.
For a moment, my Lords, I must become parochial and say something about the imperfectness of the present air service between Aberdeen and London, because I think it gives a good illustration of why our air services must be improved. The present popularity of the air service between Aberdeen and London is much diminished by the fact that it is not a non-stop service and it is possible for businessmen and others to become stuck at Edinburgh or Glasgow. The risk is only small, but it is out of all proportion to the deterrent to travel by air. I know it is difficult for British European Airways to assess the popularity of a non-stop plane service between Aberdeen and London, and possibly B.E.A. are not in a financial position to experiment. So, my Lords, the only way to find out the possibilities of such a service is to give it a trial, and for this very reason I suggest that British European Airways should be given a grant. Only in this way will real and quick progress be made in the sphere of air travel.
Notable success is seldom unattached from an element of risk, and in the interests of progress the Government must back this element of risk, because Scotland, with her good labour force, comparatively low rents, comparative freedom from fog, magnificent countryside and freedom from congestion, has opportunities for all, including the industrialist, the tourist, even those who cannot tolerate the killing pace of life, the fog and the congestion in the South East of England. Scotland has a great deal to offer, but the opportunities are not
114
readily available until she has a highly efficient air service. The Government must take action now and really ring the bell; not just a little tinkle from a short-wave transmitter in St. Andrew's House, but a resounding, rich-toned peal that will be heard throughout Scotland. If the Government do this, I can assure them that the Scots will not be slow to respond.
There are many who are saying that the Government have no new ideas for Scotland and that whatever is done will take a long time to materialise. My Lords, the answer is the key to greater economic growth in Scotland as stressed by the Toothill Report: vastly—and I underline "vastly"—improved air services. This means one bold measure, because it would have the greatest and quickest impact on Scottish economic growth; one suitable measure, because it would cost the Government and the taxpayer least; one sweeping measure, because lit would stimulate every city, village, glen and island in Scotland. Then Scotland, with the best possible air service, would soon get that vitality and economic growth she has been striving for for so long.
8.9 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, in the interest of brevity I am afraid some of my remarks may appear a little staccato, but I am sure your Lordships will be grateful for this. First, I should like to say a word about council house rents, endorsing what my noble friend Lord McCorquodale of Newton said. It is interesting to note that, as a rough-and-ready rule, there is some correlation between high unemployment and low council house rents, and I feel that the fact that industry has to subsidise these very low council house rents in many Scottish towns and counties has an enormously deterrent effect on industry's moving to those particular areas. I would commend the Government, therefore, on what they have already done in this direction, but ask them whether they could not become a little more vicious in this policy and refuse to give any grants at all to any town or county council whose rent for, say, a post-war three-bedroom house is below 30s. or some similar arbitrary figure. This, I think, would soon have the desired effect, or, at

115
any rate, what is in my opinion the desired effect.
Secondly, I do not think anyone has mentioned the sea fishing industry. This is, of course, one of Scotland's prime industries and a very ancient one. I feel that unless the Government take speedy action in increasing the limit to twelve miles very soon, this industry will be going the same way as so many other industries, such as the shale mines, which have been overtaken by the march of time and the inertia of the Government of the day. There is undoubtedly a great demand for sea fish, so there is no fear that its product would ever be unpopular. But in my view there will not be anything for the fishing industry to produce if the limit is not extended soon to twelve miles.
Thirdly, I should like to endorse what every noble Lord has said about communications. It seems that, as always, they concentrated on that Forth—Clyde belt, with possibly the Kingdom of Fife thrown in for good measure; indeed, we in the Highlands have been particularly unlucky, in some ways, in communications. At the moment it is made much more difficult to get any industrialist to show interest anywhere North of Perth because of the fact that every other day the newspapers say that all railways North of Perth do not pay and may be closed. I am sure that we all agree that that would be a disaster, and I think it would help the towns and counties North of Perth if the Government could tell us what is their policy in this respect and give the exact lines which they consider it essential should remain open, as well as a guarantee that the trains will continue to run over those lines for at least the next 20 years, or until there is a method of transport which can compete with the railways both in cost and in reliability of running. Let us face it: in the winter the roads are not entirely reliable.
Fourthly, I should like to say a little about forestry. I think that at the moment many private individuals are holding back on their planting programmes because of the fear that markets may be flooded by the vast amount of timber which the Forestry Commission are obviously going to be able to produce in the near future. I am not
116
criticising the Forestry Commission's planting programme in any way. It is an excellent thing: they have brought a lot of employment to areas which otherwise would have virtually none, and I sincerely hope that they will continue with the programme. But I feel that it would encourage private individuals to plant more if the Government would give some guarantee for prices in the future of timber under 30 years old. There is no difficulty at the moment in selling timber that is over, in round figures, 30 years; it is quite big and has a great many uses. But there is absolutely no market at the present time for first and second, and even third, thinnings of softwood plantations, with the possible exception of spruce, which is in a slightly different category. In my view, people would be much more encouraged, and would feel more able to go ahead, if the Government could give some guarantee of this. I also feel that it might help if a fund were set up to finance people who could not afford to do their own planting but did not wish to sell or lease their land to the Forestry Commission. This fund might give loans which for the first 20 years should be interest-free, interest thereafter being at commercial rates.
Lastly, I should like to say a few brief words about tourism. The tourist trade is Britain's fourth biggest export, and I think it should be regarded as such. It should now be regarded as an industry and not as a plaything, which appears to be the way the Government regard it at the moment. It brings employment to areas where employment is most needed, because, on the whole, people like to take their holidays in fairly remote areas—at any rate, they do not like taking their holidays in large industrial towns. I think the Government can help the tourist industry in several ways: first, by keeping the railways in the tourist areas open, even if they do have to be subsidised a little, and, secondly, by building roads. Up till now, as always, everyone—including the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, who said with pride there would be dual carriageways between all the major cities in Scotland, mentioning a series of towns in the Forth-Clyde belt—has concentrated on the Forth-Clyde belt. But I can assure your Lordships that although there have been plans for at least seven years to improve the A.9 between Perth and Inverness, so far only three miles has

117
been improved. The rest, with the exception of a piece where a narrow bridge has been removed, is in the same state as it was before the war. I think it would help tourism if trunk roads were improved and brought up to a good standard, so that one could overtake a car towing a caravan, which cannot be done on 90 per cent. of them at the moment.
The next point concerns hotels. The hotel industry find it very difficult to borrow money commercially because they are still regarded by the banks, rightly or wrongly, as a bad risk. I fully appreciate that the Government cannot influence the banks in any way as to whom they lend money to (indeed, at times they try to cause them not to lend money at all, which I think is a pity), and that the banks must be allowed to pursue their own course. Sir Hugh Fraser has set up what is called the Highland Trust Development Council, which has done a great job for a very small area. I wonder whether the Government could not set up something of the same kind which could cover the whole of Scotland and not just one or two small areas.
It is interesting to note that between 1950 and 1960 only five hotels were built in Scotland and they were all very small. This, for an industry which has grown enormously in volume over the same ten years, seems to me to be remarkable; and shows that there must be some difficulties in the hotel industry which do not afflict other industries. Another thing which would help the hotel industry would be to treat the equipment in the same way as the equipment of every other industry in the country; that is to say, if hotels were given initial allowances, which at the moment they are not given, on their furniture or equipment. I cannot quite see why this distinction has been made, and it seems to me it should be ended.
I should like to give a bouquet to the Government for amending the licensing laws in Scotland last year. I am sure that this has been of enormous benefit to tourists. I would ask once again, as I did last year, why we must go on having State management areas, which give us an oasis in the comparative normality of the drinking laws in Scotland, where it is impossible for a private individual to get a licence to run a hotel
118
or public-house or off-licence. Without having the bar trade it is almost impossible to make a hotel pay, and so in these areas there is virtually no incentive for any private individual to start a hotel. Could the Government not consider repealing these State management areas? It would require only a very small Bill which I am sure would be largely non-controversial.
I should like to mention very briefly the development of other tourist attractions, all of which cost money and for which, at the moment, there is no finance. I myself am basically very much in favour of some form of tourist tax, kurtax, but, unlike my noble friend Lord Haddington, I think it would be a great pity if this were administered locally and not over the whole of Scotland. The amount of money that this can produce in one local area will be entirely inadequate to build a ski-lift or a swimming pool, or a major development of that sort, for at least ten or twelve years, and we want the amenities now to attract the tourists of the future. We do not want to collect sixpence or one shilling from them now and not have anything to show for fifteen or twenty years. Even though people are likely to be keener on the idea if it is administered locally, I think that in the long, run it would be a great pity if this were so. I am sure that a tourist tax would be of enormous benefit to Scotland, but that it should cover the whole country and should be administered with a view to helping the whole country and not just the areas in which it is collected. Having said that, I apologise for being so staccato, but I feel strongly on all these points and I think that the Government should help us in some way.
8.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate at all, but I want to say how much we appreciate the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, in initiating this debate in your Lordships' House and in all the work that he has done for Scotland during his time as Chairman of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry). I also think we should congratulate noble Lords on their attendance, because a great many noble Lords do not live in England; they have come from Scotland especially for this job, and it is no fun travelling on British

119
Railways these days, as your Lordships all well know, because the heating has completely gone and is a thing of the past.
I want only to emphasise one or two things: first, that Her Majesty's Government should remember that Scotland is a country itself with its own laws and customs, and not just a collection of counties added on to England, such as people often believe. I believe in unity. I am a strong believer in decentralisation, but I am not a nationalist, although I am often taken as one. I think the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, mentioned a fact that affects the Government as much as anybody else—namely, that you cannot have a body that is well and an arm that is sick. You must have Scotland as well as the rest of the country, otherwise you will merely have a sick whole, and you cannot get on in that way.
There is no doubt that Scotland is extremely sick, and something must be done about it. Whether it is perhaps our own fault that we have been so long subservient to England and, so to speak, second in command for so long that we have lost a good deal of our old self-confidence and independence, I do not know; but we must get it back. Above all, we must get back again our self-confidence and independence. It may be that perhaps, as I think was mentioned by the chairman of the Hydro-Electric Board, we have failed in our obligations towards certain people.
Therefore, I make certain suggestions. The first is one which will not he well received by the Treasury in this country. It is that there should be a Joint Treasury Board. I think that it is essential that there should be a body of opinion in the country, living in Scotland, which can advise on financial matters. I know the names of several young people who would come forward and serve in that capacity if they were so wanted. It is vital that this should be done.
The second thing that was mentioned was the question of immigration. I give your Lordships only two instances which are interesting. I happened to travel on a train the other day and there was a woman who said that she was going home. I always talk to people and I said, "Where do you live?" She happened to live in my own county. She
120
said, "I am going home. My husband is a chartered accountant and he is working in the Midlands." I said, "Is he? Why is he doing that?" She said, "Because in England the salary is £2,000 a year, but in Scotland it is only £1,000 a year." So this immigration question has a great deal to do with salaries.
The second thing is that the Treasury has the appointment of civil servants to the various Departments. The No. 2 at the Scottish Office, who is a most efficient man, was eventually shifted down to the Home Office. I said to him, "How can you do this?" He said, "I cannot afford to do anything else. This is the land of opportunity. I must go South. I have sons to educate." Therefore I cannot help feeling that immigration has a lot to do with this question of salary. This general exodus of people from Scotland to England must be attended to. Salaries must be put up so that people in Scotland can earn the same as it is possible to earn in England.
Certain matters have already been dealt with by noble Lords. One such thing is tourism. Tourism is an industry, and I think that we must increase tourism in the Highlands. Finally, there is the question of housing. If a man has a good house he and his wife are happy. This question of housing must be looked into. In the rural districts of Scotland the housing is fairly good, but there is a lot to be desired in the urban districts of Scotland, where there is room for great improvement. Most of these matters have already been dealt with and. owing to the late hour, I will close, having put forward merely those points to which I hope the Government will give attention.
8.27 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, we have had a good debate, if a somewhat long one. I think not only that the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, is to be congratulated on moving the original Motion, but that all those who have taken part have dealt a fair blow for Scotland. I am hoping that the debate is going to be even better when we have heard the reply of the Minister of State and all the good things that I am sure that he has up his sleeve for us. I feel the more confident of that because the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, spoke very much of the past, as the

121
noble Lord, Lord Hughes, pointed out. It is a good past, but it is the past, and we have at the present moment over 100,000 people unemployed; so we must not be too satisfied with the past, even if the record is fairly good.
My general impression of the debate is that it is one not of defeatism, not of our being down and out, as Lord Polwarth pointed out, but rather that there have been many constructive suggestions for the resurgence of Scotland, for its leading the way so that it will be one of the main strengths of the United Kingdom. This has been a non-Party debate: Scotland has come first, which is what we all expect. One of the most interesting things that have come out of the debate has been the fact that one or two speakers not only have said that "the Government must do this", and "the Government must do that", but have also told various Scots at home what they should do.
The noble Lord, Lord Todd, in his remarkable maiden speech, said that we lag behind on research and development. That, I think, is largely a problem for management. Then, the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, pointed out that good neighbour relations were a key thing for us. Again, that is primarily something for management. Then my noble friend Lord Stonehaven made the point that it was most important that local authorities should get together. It is not only the Government who have to do things. We have to do things ourselves.
My Lords, as I see it, there are two sides to what has to be done. The first is the very short term action to take care of immediate unemployment. There was the suggestion of dealing immediately with the derelict areas. That is a good example of providing immediate employment to take care of the immediate situation. The second is the long-term problem—the provision of better schools and improved education. One can start on this now, but the result will not show for many years to come. There are certain things which will kill two birds with one stone, if I may so put it: that is to say, it will help in the short term as well as in the long term. The most obvious example is roads and bridges. We have heard of their importance to tourism and to forestry in the north; we
122
have heard of their importance to the industrial areas. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has said that we are going to spend £71 million in the next five years on roads, and that is an impressive figure. But I should hope, in the position in which we are to-day, that we should try to do better than that and try to spend a large part of that sum in the first year or two.
Here is our opportunity. We can all give examples in different parts of Scotland. I will give an illustration about Grangemouth. It is true we are going to have two fine bridges in this great port, but when you go north you find that Chesterton with his English roads has nothing on the roads there. You will recall he spoke of
"A reeling road, a rolling road that rambles round the shire."
I assure your Lordships that the roads going north do a good deal more than that. They want widening and straightening, and they want it now. Then, again, another excellent stone for killing two birds is to deal with the housing and the new towns. I do not wish to elaborate on this point because so many other noble Lords have already done so. I think that we ought to encourage private builders to get on with this work. Nothing would be better for providing employment and bringing about a new feeling in the country. I do not understand why there has been so much hesitation in Scotland in the past over having private housing. Wherever I look I see people busy with their gardens, and if you are proud of your garden you should be proud of your house.
My Lords, I want to touch on one or two bits and pieces, as I call them. First of all, I should like to touch upon the Fort William pulp mill, because I am not sure that it is "in the bag", as it were. We have heard from the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, about the importance of forestry. If we do not get this pulp mill up at Fort William, then the whole of the Highlands will be in a bad way. I only hope that the pressure will be kept up and that there will be no hesitation at the last moment so that the thing will not see the light of day. Forestry to-day provides employment for one person to every 100 acres, but once the

123
trees have grown, once the thing has really got going, I think we shall find we need four or five men per 100 acres. That is the experience in Germany, and I see no reason why that should not be the case here. We must go all out on this.
The next item in my "bits and pieces" is what noble Lords have talked about again and again, and that is that the industrialist must be allowed to see the carrot. I find it absurd that, for some unknown reason, the Board of Trade has to keep up its sleeve what it is prepared to give as a minimum to help industry. I simply cannot see the reason behind it, nor could the noble Lords, Lord Bilsland, Lord Hughes, Lord Strathclyde and others who have spoken. I hope that there will soon be a change in this matter. Then there is the question which we have heard so often this evening: where are we going to use the carrot? I find it very curious that under the Local Employment Act, as I understand it, as soon as a thing gets going you have to stop. When I was in business I was always told: "Cut your losses and run your luck". If business proceeded on the basis of the Local Employment Act, they would go bankrupt to-morrow. Therefore, I hope that to this extent it will be changed, that the Government will recognise the well-known saying that "Nothing succeeds like success", and will carry it out.
Again among my bits and pieces, I want to touch on the question of the coal-powered station. I would underline the word "coal", because in regard to this large new power station that is proposed I understand that there have been inquiries as to whether the oil companies might tender for the fuel. I can understand that that inquiry might be made as an exercise, but, thinking of all the arguments that must be weighed on the other side, I hope it is nothing more than an exercise. There is the saving of foreign exchange through having the coal produced at home; the uncertainty from the source of the supply being abroad; and the realisation of the employment it is going to give —new jobs for 10,000 miners, and all the ancillary jobs that must flow from it. I understand that it costs at least £2,000 to create a new job, if you can find a new job to create. Here is one offered
124
to us without any great, difficulty at all. If my calculation is right, if oil is used one will have to spend some £40 million to create an equivalent number of jobs.
I should like to mention the Scottish Council. I do not know whether I should be saying this—and perhaps they would not like me to say it—but what a splendid job they do, especially having regard to their budget of only £70,000. The only reason the Government get away with this very low figure is because of the immense amount of voluntary work that is done and because of the considerable sacrifice on the part of the people involved in it. I think the Government should seriously consider doing the same for the Scottish Council as they do for the Dollar Export Council: match pound for pound the subscriptions that may come from all over Scotland. I believe that with that additional certainty of funds the Council would be able to expand their representation and agencies, as they have done to an extraordinary extent already when one considers their "shoestring" budget. I do not know how they manage to carry on at the present figure. My Lords, I cannot develop all the various points, having regard to the time of the evening. Obviously, there are many others—for example, the Rochdale Report on the importance of the Port of Leith. Let us now get on with it.
I now come to my last point, the implementation of the Toothill Report, which, if it is not a five-year plan, is a framework, a broad industrial plan for the economy of Scotland. I know that the Government accept many of its recommendations; we have seen that from their observations which were published in August. We heard further from the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, about the additions to the new Scottish Development Department, which are very satisfactory. Then, behind them, we have the Scottish Council, the "ginger group", as it were. But there is still a demand for something more. The Scottish Trades Union Congress have suggested that there should be an Economic Conference; and if one reads Scottish newspapers, one sees demands for the setting up of regional and other bodies. Even if the existing organisation is adequate, as has been in some degree argued by the Government, it

125
still has not caught the imagination in Scotland; it has net succeeded in doing the trick of letting the people in Scotland feel: "We are all in this together, and can all, directly or indirectly, play our part". It has not succeeded in touching the spirit of Scottish nationalism.
The other day the Government produced a secret weapon (if I may put it that way) for the North-East, in the noble Viscount the Leader of this House, Lord Hailsham. But I would suggest that, while we do not necessarily want a secret weapon, there is something else that we might consider. What I have in mind, following the suggestion made by the Scottish trade unions, is that a conference should be called in Scotland. Who should be in that conference? Well, obviously, the industrialists, the agriculturists, trade unionists, local authorities, and universities, with their scientists and the technicians. There might even be some M.P.s and one or two Peers.
If I am asked "What would be the agenda of the conference?", my answer is that it would be the carrying out of the Toothill Report, or seeing how it is carried out. What may be the outcome of the conference? I do not know. If I knew, perhaps there would be no point in the conference. But it may produce something new; it may strengthen existing organisations, or do something like that. If it goes well, then I suggest that a year later we should have a second conference, following up all the work done during the year. It would be a sort of annual report to the nation, rather in the same way as f think occurs to-day in America. But this would be a particularly Scottish affair just to see how they are getting on, and everybody would feel he was taking part. So I hope that that suggestion will be considered by the Government, although it may be that, with hard logic, everything is beautiful as it is to-day.
My Lords, we are all anxiously awaiting the speech of the Minister of State. I hope, and I know all your Lordships hope, that he is going to produce some good things for us, and a promise of more to come after he has had a chance of considering all the points that have been made by your Lordships. I would assure him of our strongest support in any battles he may have with other
126
Government Departments as a result of the debate, in trying to get the things we want which will enable Scotland to go forward. I know also that he will not be surprised if I say that if there is a faltering, then the Scottish Peers who have come down here tonight will not hesitate to come down again to attack and to return to the charge.
8.43 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, I must first thank the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, for giving us this opportunity to have what has been, I suppose, one of the most important debates about Scotland that we have had in this House for many years; and I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, that we are sincerely grateful to the many noble Lords who have come to speak to-day, often at considerable difficulty.
As my noble friend Lord Dundee said, four and a half years ago there was a very similar debate in this House, in which some of your Lordships here to-day made constructive and farsighted speeches forecasting the problems that lay ahead, and wondering what, if anything, the Government were going to do about them. As my noble friend said in his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, made a plea for a steel strip mill and also for a graving dock. I hope that history will repeat itself over many of the suggestions that your Lordships have made to-day. But my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, who on that occasion wound up the debate for the Government, was cautious: he referred to neither of these points. I am in the same position to-day. I will try to answer adequately as many points as I can, but I am well aware that what your Lordships want from the Government spokesman is not pious hopes and promises that are not fulfilled; you want results, and before results are certain Ministers must often frame their words carefully.
I hope to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, that, even though we have not met with the success he and I would like, he is going a little far in saying that the Government have failed to take cognisance of the situation. I hope, too, to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that the Government realise to the full

127
that, however well we have done, we still have not done well enough. The noble Lord, Lord Todd, whom I should like to congratulate on such an excellent maiden speech, has referred to Scotland as the birthplace of technical education. It is good to realise that we are still providing a lead in spite of the losses of skilled manpower to which he drew attention. At the highest level, the Royal College of Science and Technology is on the threshold of a new and unique development as a degree-granting institution in its own right. As announced last year, the University Grants Committee has accepted in principle the case for its elevation to this status. Arrangements are now being worked out so that it will be ready to start, in the light of the Robbins Report, on a new career as the first separate technological university in Great Britain. At apprenticeship level, the Stow College of Engineering in Glasgow introduced an experimental scheme for apprenticeship training last September. The scheme, which is the first in Britain, is designed to ascertain the value of an alternative to the traditional type of training in relation to standards of craftsmanship. This full-time course will extend over three years, and it will be followed by a period of two years in industry to complete the normal five years' apprenticeship. We are very grateful to the bodies who have made this course possible.
The noble Lord also suggested that there should be an intensive effort to stimulate technological development. In this field the central institutions can help, and are in fact doing so. Some years ago, as he will know, a pioneer scheme was tried out at the Royal College of Science and Technology in co-operation with the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. Wider developments are now being launched, again in co-operation with that Department. The governing bodies of the Heriot-Watt College in Edinburgh, Robert Gordon's Technical College, Aberdeen, Dundee Technical College and Paisley Technical College are each in process of appointing an additional lecturer with teaching duties so limited that he will be able to undertake liaison with local industry as his main task.
128
The noble Lord said that he would like to see Scottish industry making more use of the National Engineering Laboratory; and how I agree with him! In this field, and indeed in many fields where the State provides services for the common good, we are beginning to realise that it is not enough just to provide the services, however helpful or however efficient they may be. The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, said in another context—and we keep on quoting Lord Polwarth to-day—that it is no good keeping the carrot in one's pocket; the services have to be well and intensively sold. If a good course is badly attended, or a good service inadequately used, the organisation sponsoring it should re-examine its own selling methods and take steps so to revise its arrangements that suitable staff are free to visit those who could benefit and spur them into action. Such is human nature that this applies as much to services that are given without payment, if not more so, as to those for which the user has to pay. In the past we have all been to blame here, but we are learning fast, though I must say that my criticisms of past failures cannot be applied to the Atomic Energy Authority in Scotland, whose contribution has been truly outstanding.
The noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, spoke about industrial relations, and though he is not here I should like to answer the point he made. My Lords, this is a field in which, as the citizens of this country are now beginning to realise, a very great deal needs to be done. In a society such as ours, public opinion is the most potent force as an arbiter of proper behaviour. Its support of laws as necessary and wise is an essential part of the machine of Parliament and Government. In this stirring of public opinion, I believe an essential step has been taken in the improvement of industrial relations, both by management and by men.
In practical ways the Minister of Labour has taken the initiative. His National Joint Advisory Council has discussed a number of basic problems, such as joint consultation, dismissals procedure, and training for supervisors and Shop stewards. The Minister of Labour has taken even more direct action with industries with a high incidence of

129
unofficial strikes. Joint talks with employers and the trade unions in the motor industry have led to practical steps to improve relations on the shop floor. Similar talks with the shipbuilding industry have led to the setting up of a working party. The Contracts of Employment Bill, With its many benefits, has been presented this Session; and the National Joint Advisory Council have been asked how improvements can be made in other directions, such as better provision for redundancy, improved arrangements for sick pay and retirement pensions, and a guaranteed minimum wage. In short, our overall aim is to improve the security and the status of work; and to achieve this, regardless of Party politics, we need, and I believe we have, the support and understanding of the majority of our people.
Now the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, spoke about education, and I will answer her shortly. On the question of the shortage of teachers in primary and secondary schools, as she will know, everything possible is being done—and I endorse the appeals she made. On the question of rural areas, she mentioned old schools and outside toilet accommodation—not very pleasant at this time of the year. I will tell her that progress is being made on modernisation, and the policy is all in the White Paper, Education in Scotland—The Next Step. If she has any particular case in mind—it is mainly a local authority matter, as she knows—I should be very glad if she would bring it to my attention. I will look, as she asked me to, at the whole question of the status and training of children's officers.
The noble Lady asked for more money for all types of educational establishments, and she gave figures for expenditure on schools. I should like to give her some information about how her wishes are being met in relation to technical colleges. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Amulree (who told me he could not be here to listen to my reply), about the importance of technical education. The story of the building of technical colleges, which is gathering momentum, is a really good one. In Scotland, 54 major projects have been approved at a cost of £27 million; three new colleges came into use last year—at Falkirk, Glasgow and Arbroath; and
130
that at Paisley will be completed soon. Ultimately, there will be 27 new technical colleges in Scotland, and, in addition, 27 major extensions or improvements to 17 existing colleges. The number of whole-time teachers has risen, and must increase still further: 1,350 in 1956, 2,000 in 1961, 3,500 in 1970. Many of these must come from industry, and a special course for teachers from industry was started last year at Jordanhill. To assist authorities, a central register of potential teachers now in industry and commerce has been established. Day release has been gathering momentum, though unfortunately not yet over the whole field. This is a challenge which still has to be met, but the figures are encouraging: 1946, 5,000; 1961, 42,000. Several factors will cause these figures to increase further. First, they must increase as the new technical colleges open; and, secondly, the new craft courses devised by the City and Guilds of London Institute, together with Commonwealth Technical Training Week, National Productivity Year, and the hard fact of increasing competition from Europe, will all act as inducements.
Now on another matter, my noble friend the Duke of Atholl, who is here, referred to rents, and so did the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton. The unjustifiably low rents of many local authority houses have for many years been a source of worry to the nation, and I agree with noble Lords that they have been a brake to progress. Local authority finances have been distorted; the burden on the rates of low-rented houses has left too little money to build houses and too little to provide other essential services; and as other noble Lords have said, it has affected industrial expansion. Especially has it affected the movement of labour, which is understandably unwilling to move from a low-rent area to a higher-rent area. Low rents have also affected private house building. After all, the cost of the pride and pleasure of owning your own house seems rather high when you are living in a fine, modern, corporation house paying about 12s, a week for it—and that is what the average rent in Scotland is today. But in 1960 it was 9s.—9s. ld. to be exact; so our efforts are beginning to succeed. After all, 12s, is one-third up on 9s; but there is still a long way to go.

131
Only recently, there have been two legislative measures which will tend to increase rents: the strengthening, in the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1962. of my right honourable friend's default powers where a local authority is found, after a public inquiry, to have failed in its duty to review rates; and then, again, the provisions in the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill designed to prevent expenditure which is used for meeting housing deficits, and which is therefore attributable to unduly low rents, from attracting Exchequer equalisation grant. We intend to keep up the pressure here until a proper balance is achieved, which is, of course, reasonable rents which give no subsidy to those who do not need one, combined with rent rebate schemes to ensure that no one in genuine need pays more rent than he can reasonably afford. We think then, to use the noble Duke's word when he said we should be vicious, we are so far being vicious enough.
Many speakers—the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, I think, and others—spoke of the problems of the Borders and the Highlands. That is a debate in itself, and it is very difficult for me to reply adequately and shortly. Fundamentally, it is a question of depopulation, and those noble Lords who spoke of the value of forestry and agriculture and complementary activities, and the indigenous industries such as fishing, were, of course, absolutely right. If one may separate the Highlands from the Borders for a moment, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde was worried about getting industry into the Highlands. Over industry, the Highlands Panel has recently established a development group with the assistance of my own Department and of the development officers, for whom, I believe, my noble friend Lord Forbes was originally responsible. Here I must say that the Highlands Panel, whose minutes I read with great interest, do a wonderful job both in helping industry and in helping the Highlands in every way possible. In the Borders, our difficulty is the attraction and the stimulation of industry, and here I could not agree more with what the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, said about local authorities working together. He was not referring to that area; but this is one of the areas in
132
Scotland where I believe much could be done if the local authorities would work more closely together and not, as the noble Viscount said, compete with each other for one unfortunate, incoming industrialist.
Much was said by the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, by my noble
friend Lord Forbes and by the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, about tourism being an industry. In both areas, tourism has been the subject of a special effort, though much more so, I think, in the Highlands than in the Borders. I believe the Borders could do more, but this is too wide a problem for me to deal with to-day. My noble friend the Duke of Atholl knows the position as well as I do, and I must say that if there is anything the Government could do properly but have not done, I personally am not aware of it. We realise that this is one of the major industries in Scotland.
One or two other questions were asked. The noble Earl, Lord Haddington, welcomed the pulp mill and so did the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, but, as my noble friend Lord Perth said, the position is a little more fluid as of now. Since Scottish Pulp (Development) Limited first approached the Government for financial assistance their requirements have greatly increased because the original consortium has now been reduced to a single firm, Wiggins Teape Limited. I can tell noble Lords that the final position is now being established and when this is done the Government will lose no time in reaching a decision.
The noble Lord, Lord Todd—and I thank him for his suggestion—spoke of a scientific study of derelict sites, and my noble friend Lord Forbes also mentioned this as a matter of considerable importance. It is essential, I agree with the noble Lords, to give a new look to the older areas and to clear away the relics of past activity which continue to disfigure them. Under the Local Employment Act, grants are available for this purpose and some important work has already been done. I should like to mention some of the places where work has been done, although I do not usually like comparisons between one area and

133
another. A substantial forward programme is now being prepared by Fife County Council and work on their first scheme is in hand. Work is already complete on the piping and filling in of part of the Monckland Canal and the establishment of a tractor servicing firm on the site of a cleared bing at Coat-bridge. Similar clearance work has been done in other parts of Lanarkshire. I am encouraged to find that in Glasgow itself one of the largest derelict sites in the city, the old Dixon Iron Works, is being cleared by private developers to make way
for a new industrial estate. In fact, 14 projects involving a capital cost of something like £250,000, and covering some 160 acres, have been authorised. This shows what can be done. I mention this at some length because I agree that much more ought to be done. My right honourable friend is considering ways and means of accelerating and extending the scope of this work.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, and the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, both referred to the contribution which forestry could make to the economic rehabilitation of rural areas. This is wholly accepted in principle by the Government. My noble friends have pointed out that very much has already been achieved in Scotland by the Forestry Commission and by private owners with the Commission's help. There is already evidence that the new forests, and the housing provided for the forestry workers and their families, are rehabilitating the areas where they are located and stopping the decline in the population.
The noble Earl, Lord Haddington, asked for the improvement of communications by road and sea for the Highlands, and the noble Lords, Lord Ferrier and Lord Forbes, spoke of the importance of roads. Over the whole field, as I think noble Lords realise, we are spending as much as our national resources permit. On the trunk roads, the effort is rightly put on improving the flow of traffic in the central industrial belt. Three years ago we spent £3·3 million for this purpose, and this year our expenditure will be over £5½ million. Classified road expenditure has increased in the last three years from under £5 million to over £7½ million. Industry has already reaped many benefits, and will soon reap many more, especially
134
from the two great river crossings, over the Forth and the Clyde.
There are other schemes designed to serve specific industrial needs. Between 1960 and 1962 we provided substantial road improvements associated with the new B.M.C. and Roote's factories, and we have authorised, or are shortly to approve, schemes to assist Ferranti's, at Dalkeith, the strip mill at Gartcosh and the Hillington Industrial Estate. But we have, to the best of our ability, used road expenditure—that is, expenditure on maintenance and repairs as well as capital work—to help immediate unemployment. The yardstick we have taken is schemes that would cost no more than £15,000 each and which could be started before March 31 and completed within six months. It is hoped to spend £1½ million in this way. That is one of the ways, as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said, of killing two birds with one stone. In times like these I agree that expenditure on roads is a most useful outlet for creating employment, especially the type of short-term expenditure to which I was referring. But there must be reservations on the employment angle. It is all right for schemes costing something like £100,000 or less, especially in areas or potential areas of high unemployment. But road works, as I think noble Lords realise, are highly mechanised and the amount of unskilled labour they can use is necessarily limited.
The noble Lords, Lord Ferrier and Lord Amulree, mentioned the Edinburgh ring road. We have debated this matter more than once in this House, and I would only remind the noble Lords that a survey undertaken by Edinburgh Corporation showed that the amount of traffic wanting to by-pass Edinburgh completely, even when the Forth bridge is opened to traffic, was very small. But I understand that more detailed traffic studies are still being made, the results of which are not yet available.
Noble Lords referred to road traffic and roads, but I would utter a brief, cheerful word about sea transport. As is already known, the Secretary of State has placed an order for three vehicle ferry vessels with Messrs. Hall, Russell, of Aberdeen. The vessels are due to be delivered early in 1964, and to be in service in the summer of that year.

135
They will carry 600 passengers and up to 52 cars. The vehicle space can also be used for conveying livestock, and there will be a cafeteria, a shop, a smoke room and bar and cabin accommodation. These new vessels will be chartered to Messrs. David MacBrayne. When they are in commission, Mull, Skye and all the Long Island except Barra, will be linked by vehicle ferries. Buses and lorries will be able to drive from the mainland to Mull, and through Skye to Lewis and the Uists.
This is an entirely new pattern of service and its effect on the Western Isles could be revolutionary. The attractions for the tourist are obvious: entirely new areas will be opened up, and the Islands will share the tourist trade that has hitherto been confined to the mainland. But farmers and crofters, shopkeepers and businessmen also should benefit from the door-to-door deliveries of goods. Oban, Fort William, Inverness and Dingwall should all find themselves in a better position than ever before to make the most of the Island trade. It has often been said that communications are the key to the solution of the Island problem. Here is a real improvement. It comes at a time when there are widespread fears and rumours that Highland transport is going to be worsened. Instead of a setback, we see here, in fact, a great step forward. It is now up to the islanders to make the most of it.
The possibility of improvement is not confined to the Western Isles. The North isles of Orkney have recently received their fine new ship, the "Orcadia", and the company are proposing to experiment this year with hydro-foil craft, which, if they are suitable for the waters, could carry passengers and mail around the islands cheaply at 35 knots.
And Shetland County Council are being energetic and far-sighted, too. They realise the great advantage of linking up the main Shetland Islands by vehicular ferries. The lessons learned about ferries by the Highlands Panel in Norway are being energetically followed up. A Norwegian expert visited Shetland and reported. A deputation of Our own people then visited Norway, and further studies are being made. I have the highest hopes.
The noble Lords, Lord Ferrier and Forbes, rightly stressed the importance
136
which industrialists attach to good air communications, and the Government fully appreciate this. That is why, as my noble friend Lord Dundee said earlier, the Ministry of Aviation are being associated with the work of the group now being established in Scotland to co-ordinate the planning of what we need to reinvigorate our economy.
I come to another phase in the debate. I will study with great care what the noble Lords, Lord Bilsland, Lord Hughes and others, said, with great knowledge, about our industrial estates, and I am grateful for their constructive thought on this matter. I will study, too, the constructive criticisms made about the Local Employment Act by the noble Lords, Lord Bilsland, Lord Hughes, Lord Strathclyde and others. I will draw these speeches to the attention of my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade. His Minister of State has been sitting here throughout almost the whole of this debate.
To one particular point which the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, asked—Can a local authority qualify for BOTAC?—the answer is, only when the local authority is the undertaker and therefore directly providing the employment. The Duke of Atholl spoke about the effect of rail closures. At this juncture I think I cannot do better than quote from the speech of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place on July 19, when he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 663, col. 673]:
"We are all anxious about the risk that considerable lengths of railway line in country areas may be closed entirely. Until the Beeching reviews are completed, no one can properly assess this risk. I can, however, make it quite clear that where a railway closure is the right course in the long run, we will ensure that it is not carried out in such a way as to leave an area bereft of adequate facilities for transport of passengers or freight."
The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, has referred to the necessity of another large thermal power station. The position briefly is this. The Cockenzie Station should be fully commissioned in 1968–69. If the increasing demand is to be met and if the Mackenzie Committee's suggestions are followed, we shall need to have a new station in commission by 1969–70. This next station, with a capacity of between 2,000 and 2,500 megawatts, which may cost the best part of £100 million, will have to start build-

137
ing next year, 1964. This year, therefore, is the year of decision, and we are anxiously awaiting the Report which the Electricity Board expect to receive soon. The South of Scotland Electricity Board, the Coal Board and the Government are very conscious of the economic and social problems that may arise if, in the Report, there is a clear conflict between coal and oil-firing. I can say no more than that we all realise that when these vast capital investments are made, every facet of the national interest in the widest sense must be taken into consideration before making the inevitable decisions.
My noble friend Lord Stonehaven spoke of an individual case of town planning. I am not going to argue the case. His facts are substantially correct. All I can say, on behalf of the Scottish Office and the County Council, is, "Sorry." I will try to ensure that this incredible delay does not happen again. But I must add this. With our rapidly changing and expanding Scottish scene, I have been very concerned about the length of time these procedures take. In the last year, the many steps in the procedures have been carefully analysed. Every step is essential for the proper protection of the individual and sometimes of the taxpayer—the inquiry and land acquisition procedures, the advertisements and the many Government Departments and local authorities directly concerned. Delays can build up at every stage without really being noticed. I will not go into details, but we have tried recently to shorten every single step, within, of course, the many statutory requirements, and by doing this we are already effecting a substantial overall reduction of time between application and decision. So the Stonehaven case is a fish that has slipped through our net, and I am sorry.
The Government recognise that the long term modernisation of Scottish economy is the primary task. While the steel strip mill, followed as it was by the great motor vehicle industry undertakings at Bathgate and Linwood, was a spectacular breakthrough, the full results of which have yet to mature, the process has been a continuing one—office machinery at places like Cumbernauld, Vale of Leven and Hillington; earth moving equipment at Newhouse and Peterhead; electronics at Edinburgh, Airdrie and Hamilton, to take only a few
138
instances. It would be misleading, in face of these developments, to paint a picture of Scotland as still a nineteenth century industrial economy. But within established Scottish industry itself progress and modernisation goes on. Indeed, it is this dynamic in Scottish industry that produces on the Scottish Council's estimate 80 per cent. of Scotland's annual increase in production and employs the great proportion of the 1,900,000 men and women at work in Scotland to-day.
It would, I think, be fair to say that many of the principles so lucidly expounded in the Toothill Report are, at least in part, a reflection of the evolution of Government policy in recent years. For example, the Scottish device of linking distribution of industry with the movement of overspill population to the new growing areas, thereby setting up a new series of growth points at such places as Irvine, Kirkintilloch, Arbroath, is commended by the Toothill Committee as perhaps one of the best instances of what they have in mind in their recommendation that there should be the maximum concentration on growth. Even more striking is the record of new towns like East Kilbride and Cumbernauld, to which my noble friend Lord Dundee referred earlier, and the intensive development of the large new trading estates as strategic centres in the industrial belt of Scotland.
Finally, although the Scottish Office has no direct responsibility at first hand for either the policy for the distribution of industry, or its detailed application, an immense amount of work has been and is being done in St. Andrew's House in surveying in physical terms the Scottish potential and making sure that what the economists call the infrastructure (a terrible word!) or firm base will be strong enough to support the modern twentieth century economy that we are determined Scotland shall have. As your Lordships may know, it has been part of my task in the Scottish Office to show the flag in one or two countries abroad. I am satisfied, from what I have seen, that the best of our industries and our products can stand comparison with the best anywhere.
But perhaps as significant, though much less well known, I find that our planning techniques can hold their own with those of other countries of comparable resources—planning techniques

139
which are now producing such new projects as Cumbernauld and East Kilbride, the large new trading estates, the Forth Bridge, and before long, if all goes well, the Tay Bridge, the large new power stations like Kincardine, the plans for the new Glasgow and the projected Loch Lomond water scheme which will send across central Scotland as much water as at present feeds Glasgow and all its industries. All this basic planning will be given a new dimension and dynamic by the new group of senior officers from the expert departments to which my noble friend has referred.
The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, has generously conceded that the Government have already done a great deal of valuable work on the technical and detailed recommendations contained in the Toothill Report, and that on only a few, but very major, issues are decisions outstanding. We appreciate the urgency and importance of conclusions on these questions of finance and financial inducements to industry and of specific measures for growth. But, as I am sure your Lordships' House will appreciate, these matters raise issues which go much wider than Scotland, important as Scotland's problem undoubtedly is. These issues affect and are affected by the central economic problems of the United Kingdom as a whole. The Toothill Report concluded that there was no panacea ready-made for solving the Scottish problem; they also very properly pointed out that the Scottish economy is inextricably bound up with the economy of the United Kingdom as a whole. The Government's first task then, above all others, is to net our whole economy moving forward again in terms of a real increase in our productive effort, without at the same time damaging our overall balance-of-payments position. If this can be done, we are adopting the speediest means available to us of stimulating economic activity in Scotland also. This has been amply demonstrated in recent years. If we can, at the same time, give Scotland a proportionately larger share of public investment—as we are doing—then we are taking two steps in one and helping to achieve a better equilibrium in the Scottish economy itself.
For all these reasons, the Government, while concentrating pre-eminently
140
on reinvigorating the economy as a whole and steering more public investment into Scotland, have felt bound to look more carefully at any measures which might suggest that Scotland is in economic terms, as it were, a "nation apart". Nothing could be more damaging in the long run to Scotland's prospects. We will continue to develop the policy already set in train and described by my noble friend for modernising the Scottish industrial structure, and such development will, of course, take account of Scotland's special needs and resources and will be applied with all the energy at our command. As my noble friend Lord Polwarth knows, he and his friends in the Scottish Council will shortly be meeting the Prime Minister, when they will be developing in more detail many of the arguments that we have heard to-day. It would be wrong of me to think of anticipating or to speculate upon the outcome of these discussions, but I can assure my noble friend that we in the Scottish Office are seizing every opportunity we can by the development of all our resources to ensure that we are ready to catch the tide when it begins to flow again.
But more than that, we are determined to press forward and accelerate the modernisation of the Scottish economy. This requires immense support and encouragement from every quarter—Scottish industry, our scientists and technicians, our craftsmen and other workers (as able as any in the world), the local authorities (and we commend those who have by the use of their housing and planning powers taken on new responsibilities in accommodating new industry and population), and, last but not least, all those who provide the indispensable around base for the whole structure of modernisation: the building and civil engineering industries, and the workers in those industries. Their role is crucial in the years ahead.
We must, above all, present a good image to the world—and we have quite a lot of good things to boast about, even if we have a rough road immediately ahead of us. The Scottish Council is playing an immense part in this vitally important task of "presenting" Scotland, by its work far exports, its regular links with the United States, Europe and the Commonwealth, its organisation of the exhibitions of the products of Scottish

141
industries and in many other ways. I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, that the Government are indebted to him and his friends for the great services they are rendering to Scotland at this time.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I thank him most heartily for his very handsome apology? I did not want to interrupt his speech.
9.27 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, we have had a long and full debate and I am sure your Lordships would wish me to be brief as possible in my reply, but I cannot leave without expressing my warm thanks to all noble Lords who have come here to support me, some at personal inconvenience and discomfort. I know that some noble Lords, and one noble Lady, spent twelve or fourteen hours in night trains devoid of heat. That, I hope, is sufficient to emphasise the importance to us in Scotland of adequate personal communications. I should like to thank, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Todd, for, if I may humbly say so, a thoughtful and perceptive maiden speech. I can think of no better new inducement that the Government could devise for the benefit of Scotland than one that would bring back to Scotland people like the noble Lords, Lord Todd and Lord McCorquodale of Newton, so that we may benefit from their knowledge and experience.
As I said at the beginning, because of the circumstances of the times, and for the reasons just explained by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, I did not expect that in this debate we should be told of any major change or advance in Government policy for the distribution of industry or the encouragement of growth in Scotland. We have, however, had two
142
most helpful replies, in particular the one to which we have just listened. Lord Craigton's coverage of the vast number of activities going on in Scotland at the present time in the hands of his Department was, I think, a most impressive one. I think we should take heart from the knowledge of the great number of undoubtedly useful developments that are in hand or are on the drawing board, and I think that Scotland should know how much it owes to its Ministers and their servants for the great devotion, skill and, above all, enthusiasm, which I thought was evidenced in the speech which we have just heard. That, I think, is most encouraging, because this is the sort of spirit we must have if we are to achieve what we have been seeking this afternoon.
If we have heard nothing in the wider field of economic policy, at least I think we have made it plain, with the great variety of knowledge and experience that has been put forward by a great number of speakers, what Scotland needs; and I think there was even a hint in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee—batting as he was, if I may say so, on a somewhat sticky wicket, from an unfamiliar Department and with a theme which most of us have already heard before—that there was not complete satisfaction that present measures are adequate to deal with this side of things. So I think we can leave here this evening confident that our time and our journeys have not all been wasted. As the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said, we shall undoubtedly return to the charge in due course. I hope your Lordships feel that this debate has been well worth while, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at half-past nine o'clock.