Sitting of 13 November 1963

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
NEW WRIT
For Sudbury and Woodbridge, in the room of the Right Honourable John Hugh Hare, O.B.E., called up to the House of Peers.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

BILLS PRESENTED
HOUSING
Bill to set up a new body to assist housing societies to provide housing accommodation, to confer powers and duties on local authorities to compel the carrying out of works for the improvement of dwellings which are without all or any of the standard amenities, to amend the law relating to the giving of financial assistance for the improvement of housing accommodation, to make further provision as to the powers and duties of local authorities as respects houses let in lodgings or occupied by more than one family, to amend the provisions of the Clean Air Act 1956 relating to the making of contributions to expenditure incurred in the adaptation of fireplaces in private dwellings, and to amend in other respects the law relating to housing, presented by Sir Keith Joseph; supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, Mr. Noble, the Attorney-General, and Mr. Green; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 1.]
DEFENCE (TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS)
Bill to facilitate the making of new arrangements for the central organisation of defence, and to provide for matters consequential thereon, presented by Mr. Thorneycroft; supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, Mr. H. Fraser, Mr. Ramsden, and Mr. Hay; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 2.]
BAHAMA ISLANDS (CONSTITUTION)
Bill to provide for the grant of a new constitution for the Bahama Islands, presented by Mr. Sandys; supported by Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, the Attorney-General, and Mr. Fisher; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 3.]
KENYA INDEPENDENCE
Bill to make provision for, and in connection with, the attainment by Kenya of fully responsible status within the Commonwealth, including provision for terminating the giving of financial and other assistance to the East African Common Services Organisation under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act 1959, presented by Mr. Sandys; supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, and the Attorney-General; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 4.]
NIGERIA REPUBLIC
Bill to make provision as to the operation of the law in relation to Nigeria as a Republic within the Commonwealth, presented by Mr. Sandys; supported by Mr. Tilney; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 5.]
ZANZIBAR
Bill to make provision in connection with Zanzibar becoming an independent State within the Commonwealth, presented by Mr. Sandys; supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, and the Attorney-General; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 6.]
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE
Bill to continue certain expiring laws, presented by Mr. Green; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 7.]
NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE RESERVES
Bill to make further provision with respect to navy, army and air force reserves, presented by Mr. Ramsden; supported by Mr. Thorneycroft, Mr. Godber, Mr. H. Fraser, and Mr. Hay; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 8.]
INDUSTRIAL TRAINING
Bill to make further provision for industrial and commercial training; to raise the limit on contributions out of the National Insurance Fund towards the expenses of the Minister of Labour in providing training courses; and for purposes connected with those matters, presented by Mr. Godber; supported by Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, Mr. Heath, Sir E. Boyle, Mr. Noble, Mr. Wood, and Mr. White-law; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 9.]
LEGAL AID
Bill to provide for the payment out of the legal aid funds of costs incurred by successful opponents of legally aided litigants, presented by the Attorney-General; supported by Mr. Brooke, Mr. Noble, Mr. Green, and the Solicitor-General; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 10.]
EXPORT GUARANTEES
Bill to amend the Export Guarantees Acts 1949 to 1961, presented by Mr. Heath; supported by Mr. Brooke, Mr. Carr, Mr. du Cann, and Mr. Green; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 11.]
ELECTRICITY AND GAS
Bill to increase the statutory limits imposed on the amounts outstanding in respect of borrowings by the Electricity Council and Electricity Boards and the Gas Council and Area Gas Boards; to make further provision for Exchequer advances to certain of those bodies; to provide in certain cases for compensating members of those bodies for loss of office; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Erroll; supported by Mr. Green and Mr. Peyton; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 12.]
POST OFFICE (BORROWING POWERS)
Bill to increase the limits imposed by section 10(2) of the Post Office Act 1961, presented by Mr. Bevins; supported by Mr. Green and Mr. Mawby; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 13.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (PRIVATE MEMBERS' TIME)
2.38 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I beg to move,
That—

(1) public bills other than Government bills shall have precedence over Government business on 17th January, 31st January, 14th February, 28th February, 13th March, 10th April, 24th April, 8th May, 12th June and 26th June.

(2) private members' notices of motions shall have precedence over Government business on 13th December, 24th January, 7th February, 21st February, 6th March, 20th March, 17th April, 1st May, 5th June and 19th June, and ballots for these notices shall be held after questions on 27th November, 15th January, 22nd January, 5th February, 19th February, 4th March, 8th April, 15th April, 13th May and 3rd June respectively;

(3) on Monday, 16th March, Monday, 27th April, Thursday, 18th June and Tuesday, 14th July private members' notices of motions shall have precedence until seven o'clock, and ballots for these notices shall be held after questions on Tuesday, 3rd March, Tuesday, 14th April, Thursday, 4th June and Tuesday, 30th June respectively;

(4) no notices of motions shall be handed in for any of the days on which private members' notices have precedence under this order in anticipation of those ballots.

This Motion accords with revised Standing Order No. 5 which was approved by the House on 1st August this year. It proposes 20 Fridays for Bills and Motions and, in addition, four half-days up to 7 p.m. for Motions. The Ballot for Bills will be on Thursday, 21st November, and the first Ballot for Notices of Motions will be on Wednesday, 27th November, for Friday, 13th December.
2.40 p.m.
Mr. John Parker: I wish to oppose this Motion. On two previous occasions, in 1957 and 1959, I queried the usefulness of Private Members' Bills under our present procedure. The whole matter was referred to a Select Committee on Procedure after, I think, the 1957 occasion when the matter was raised and one of the recommendations of that Select Committee relevant to Private Members' Bills has been carried out, namely, the proposal about the alteration of the size of Standing Committees considering Private Members' Bills and their rules about quorums and the closure.

161
Those changes have been very useful, but the fact remains, as any Member who attends on Fridays will know, that the Friday filibuster is still a very serious factor interfering with Private Members' time, and it is time that something was done about this problem.
There is growing criticism of our House and of Parliament generally in the country. Many back-bench Members have a feeling of frustration from time to time because they think that they have very little control over the Executive and are increasingly becoming only Lobby fodder. I willnot go into that wider question now. However, what is equally important is that private Members should not feel that they cannot make useful contributions to altering the law of the country. At present much of the time allocated to them is largely wasted because of our rules of procedure. I should have thought that it was time that we looked at this whole question once mere.
There has been a very considerable change in the character of Private Members' Bills in the present century. I think it worth while to look at the practice at the beginning of this century. From then up to the 1930s most Private Members' Bills which were introduced on Fridays were on party political subjects. In fact, they were the occasion for party political propaganda. Members introduced Bills which happened to be the favoured nostrums of their political party, and very full debates took place.
Although, nominally, Members had a free vote, in fact the Government Whips took good care to ensure that no Bill to which they objected was carried on Second Reading. At that time, if one happened to be a Labour Member who had won a place in the private Ballot it was the practice to bring in a Bill—say—in favour of nationalisation of the mines or to make some alteration to the law on industrial insurance. If one happened to be a Conservative one brought in a Bill on tariff reform or military conscription. If one was a Liberal Member, one brought in a Bill about proportional representation or one in favour of closing the public houses on Sunday in some part of Britain where they were still open. There were very big attendances on Fridays and very big votes.
162
However, in the early 1930s there was an occasion when an hon. Member of the Conservative Party proposed to bring in a Private Member's Bill dealing with trade union reform, and Mr. Baldwin, who was then Prime Minister and the Leader of the Conservative Party, came to the House and made a very strong attack on that Bill and asked his supporters to go into the Lobby against it, which they did. The line that he took was this. He did not think it right and proper that private Members' time should be spent mainly on party propaganda Bills.
Mr. Baldwin advised the House that it should specialise in two kinds of Bills, one the non-controversial Bill and the other the Bill which was controversial, but controversial across party lines. He believed that a lot of useful work could be done by private Members on such Bills. His advice was followed by his supporters and, ultimately, by most Members on both sides of the House. There was a change, therefore, in the character of Private Members' Bills very much to the advantage of the House in this kind of legislation.
One of the first Bills under the new dispensation was Sir A. P. Herbert's Marriage Reform Bill which introduced very important changes on a very controversial subject, namely, the law of marriage and divorce, which could not possibly have been introduced by a Government but which was introduced by a private Member and finally passed. Following that, there were many other Bills introduced from both sides of the House. Since the 1930s many useful pieces of private Members' legislation, some non-controversial and some controversial, which have been supported by both sides of the House have become law.
Unfortunately, private Members trying to get legislation through the House suffer from many great disadvantages. The Government can always put on the Whips to get legislation through. Private Members cannot do that. The Government have the advantage of being able to keep a House very easily if they have a controversial Bill which they want to get through.
Private Members do not have the assistance in drafting Bills which Government Departments have. This matter

163
was gone into by a Select Committee and one of the proposals made by it was that private Members should have the assistance of the Parliamentary draftsmen in drafting their Bills and the Amendments which they wanted to make to other Bills. So far as I know, that recommendation has not been carried out. I therefore ask the Leader of the House whether steps could be taken to make available to private Members when drafting Bills the assistance of Parliamentary draftsmen and if they want to draft Amendments to Private Members' Bills or Government Bills.
Another thing which Members who are here on Fridays will know private Members suffer from is that the rules governing the running of private Members' business are quite unsuitable for that purpose. They may suit the Government, which, rightly, can always ensure that they have a sufficient number of their supporters here to keep a House or pass the Closure when they wish to do so, but private Members do not have that advantage.
For example, the rule about having counts between one o'clock and quarter past one is a very great obstacle to private Members wishing to keep a House in order to get their Bills through. I know that the question of the Closure was looked into by the Select Committee which recommended that there should be no change in the present practice. However, I should have thought that on recent experience this matter should be considered again. If we are to kill the Friday filibuster—and I believe that we must do so if justice is to be done to private Members—this matter must be looked into once more.
Let us look at the facts. There have been 15 Sessions since private Members' time was reintroduced in 1947. During those 15 Sessions, Mr. Speaker gave his approval for the Closure to be moved on a Private Member's Bill on 30 occasions. I am excluding votes in Standing Committees and on Motions. On only six occasions was the Closure carried. Only then was it possible to muster 100 Members to carry the Closure. That is not the way to run private Members' time on Fridays on commonsense lines. Apart from those six occasions, the Motion for the Closure was accepted nine times be-
164
cause at the last moment the people who were filibustering climbed down and let the Closure go through without a vote. On two out of these nine occasions the Government asked them to do so.
On six out of the other 15 occasions over 50 votes were cast in favour of the Closure. On three occasions there were over 80 votes in favour of the Closure, twice there were 87 and once 83. In many cases the vote against the Closure has been small, often under 20. On one of these occasions it was only six. It is ridiculous when over 80 Members vote for the Closure and only 20 vote against it that there should be no further discussion of the Bill under consideration. I should have thought that there was a very strong case for altering the figure required to support the Closure from 100 to 50 when private Members' business comes up on Fridays.
It is argued as against this that it is wrong for a small House to be able to pass a Bill on a Friday, when many hon. Members have other business. True, many live in the provinces, or in Scotland or Wales, and most of those who attend the House on Fridays live in the London area. It is only to be expected that those interested are most likely to attend. Nonetheless I should have thought it right and proper that there should be an opportunity of going ahead with such legislation. If it should prove to be contrary to the general wishes of the majority of hon. Members, there is always the opportunity of turning down such a Bill on Third Reading. I submit it would not, therefore, be undermining the rights of the House as a whole if we were to reduce the number required for the Closure on a Friday.
One or two other points require investigation. There is the custom of hon. Members talking at great length on an earlier Bill which may be non-controversial to prevent proper discussion and a vote on an important Bill which is to follow. This is one of the points which needs to be investigated. I therefore suggest that it is time that we set up another Select Committee, not with the same terms of reference as the earlier Committee, but to look at the whole question of how to spend private Members' time rather more usefully from the point of view of the House as a whole and of private Members.

165
I have been a Member of the House for 28 years. I love this House of Commons. I want to see it working as an effective body and I am certain that the public outside wants to see us as an effective body doing a good job of work. We not; only have to be businesslike, but we have to be seen to be businesslike outside. I am certain that the filibuster which one so often has on a Friday does no credit to this House or to the Members who take part in it.
Irealise that some Members do not like controversial legislation to be introduced on a Friday. I think, however, that the great majority of hon. Members support the views of Mr. Baldwin on this matter and consider that one of the jobs of Parliament and of private Members, on both sides, is not only to introduce non-controversial legislation, but to take advantage of introducing controversial legislation on the many issues, like the laws of divorce and marriage, and so on, in which controversy cuts across party lines. That is the only opportunity when this kind of legislation can be brought in for discussion in the House, because the Government do not normally deal with that kind of issue.
I therefore suggest that we should not accept the Motion at this time. I ask the Leader of the House whether he will not consider setting up a Select Committee on the lines I have suggested with rather wider terms of reference, namely, as to how we can improve our procedure and assist private Members in doing their job of introducing legislation and getting it through in this House.
2.53 p.m.
Miss Joan Vickers: I support what the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) has said, because we in this House try to make our Private Members' Bills all-party Bills. We get together and consider them thoroughly and we do not bring Bills of this nature forward to the House without proper and due consideration. In other words, no frivolous Bills are introduced by right hon. and hon. Members, on either side of the House.
I am not one of the London Members, but I take the opportunity of spending a great number of Fridays here, not only to bring forward Bills myself, but to
166
support those of other hon. Members. This Friday procedure is getting farcical. We have what I call the Friday Members, who come along simply to yell the word "Object". Very often, they have little idea even of the Title of the Bill and more often than not no idea of its contents. I have learnt this to my own detriment.
The hon. Member for Dagenhamhas mentioned that when considering their Bills private Members are probably put to considerable financial cost. Hon. Members who, like myself, are not trained as lawyers have to approach experts and need help with the drafting of their Bills and with Amendments. When one has gone to this expense, it is very infra dig to come along here and not even get a hearing. On two occasions when I have had Bills—one under the Ten Minutes Rule and another through Second Reading—I went to the Committee stage and then had to go through the procedure of hon. Members sitting in the passage outside the Committee room in order not to give me a quorum, so that the Bill would be delayed. I got it to Committee stage, however, and I suppose I must be grateful for that.
On the second occasion, I was talked out. What was quite inexcusable was that I was talked out by the then Joint Under-Secretary of State to the Home Department, despite the fact that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) drew his attention to the hour. He replied that he still had a great deal to say and continued his speech until after four o'clock.
If hon. Members take the trouble to introduce a Bill—and some of these Bills are quite acceptable to the Government, who cannot find time themselves to introduce them—we should get a fair and proper hearing. For this reason, I support what has been said by the hon. Member for Dagenham, so that it may be worth while for hon. Members to bring forward independent Bills which are apt and beneficial for the community as a whole.
I have not been a Member of the House nearly as long as the hon. Member for Dagenham, but during the period I have been here there have been a great number of Bills of benefit to the

167
country and to the individuals concerned. In bringing forward his Bill in regard to marriage last Session, the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) was doing a great service to many people. That is one occasion which remains in our memories.
I support the hon. Member for Dagenham. If we cannot have a direct answer from my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal today, perhaps he will say that he will look into the whole procedure and see whether we cannot get a better balance in regard to our Private Members' Bills, both those which are balloted for, and the Ten Minutes Rule Bills.
2.57 p.m.
Mr. Leo Abse:I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) has said, because unless we take opportunities such as this one today to affirm the rights of private Members, the process of the private Members' role being diminished is bound to continue. When considering the proposals put forward by my hon. Friend, one must consider them against the present background. It is apparent to all of us that over the years there has, perhaps, been a hardening of political views and a rigidity in party politics, and perhaps for this reason it becomes more important that we should create the conditions so that with Measures which are not party Measures, opportunities and facilities could genuinely be open to hon. Members who wish to bring the issues before the House.
In so many respects, the private Member is being threatened. It is platitudinous to talk today of the growth of the Executive. It is known that in the country there are fears that we are almost getting a presidential system. In the light of recent events, it is becoming clear that unless action is taken, the role of the private Member is becoming increasingly that of a welfare officer or of a minor ombudsman and is ceasing to be the role of an individual who frames part of the legislation of the country.
When the rare opportunity comes to a ballot victor—and one must consider how rare that opportunity is—it is vitally important that he exercises his right to introduce a genuine Bill, one which is being presented not to deal with an over-
168
spill Measure, a Bill which the Government want, a piece of camouflaged Government legislation, a Measure which is the result of a worthy Committee recommending unanimously an alteration in some minutiae of the law. That is not the function of a Private Member's Bill. As long as the present rules exist, it is almost inevitable, however, that if the private Member wants to get anything done he will select something in that category, otherwise he knows that he is in danger of all his work being utterly frustrated.
What does a private Member face? Consider the obstacles as matters stand. First, he has the difficulty which overhangs the House of a certain dilettante attitude, which means that the private Member has no access to the sort of research facilities that are open to the Government. We all know that we have a rude, crude research system here and that the private Member, therefore, has to start by doing his own research.
No Department is available and no research organisation is open to the private Member, unless he chooses some blatantly propagandist party Bill, and that is precisely what we want to prevent; if we create circumstances where the private Member has no research facilities he is under the temptation to select either something utterly innocuous or something blatantly controversial, and the role of the private Member becomes diminished.
Or again, consider that he has to pay out a great deal of money. If he wants to get a Bill started he has to get the Bill drafted. This is a complicated task. We pay our Parliamentary draftsmen, rightly, very large sums of money. Is it right, is it proper, that a Member has, out of his meagre salary, to pay out substantial sums to get his Bill into any sort of shape at all? The minimum which should be done to protect the right of the private Member is to ensure that from the beginning, and not at a late stage of the Bill, there should be open to the private Member the legal resources at the disposal of the Government, so that his intentions can be articulated within his Private Member's Bill. Having to wait for this to be done until the Private Member's Bill is well on its way is not good enough.

169
He has to consider, too, what it will cost him. Anyone who has brought forward a Private Member's Bill knows that if he is going to be courteous, even in an elementary degree, he may be likely to have to reply to literally thousands of letters. Yet here we are as private Members still begging for any secretarial assistance, and still being expected out of our meagre salaries, which are in many cases Members' whole earnings—to have to face the sending of letters—by the thousands in many cases, as I know from my own recent experience—and having to pay for the postage involved.
All these obstacles exist for the person who has anything to do with bringing forward a Private Member's Bill. Is it any wonder that the numbers of Members seeking to bring in a Private Member's Bill constitute only half the House? Only half of us even enter into the Ballot. That is, of course, because Members know from what they have heard or from their own past experience that they have to meet obstacle after obstacle if they want to bring forward legislation of a constructive, albeit controversial, character.
Then, too, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham said, a Member finds himself in the miserable position that he cannot get 100 Members here—as I know, having submitted two Bills—and mainly because Members of Parliament cannot afford to stay an extra night. This is so. We are not paid enough to be on the job. It is indisputable that many Members leave on a Thursday because they cannot afford to stay an extra night to be here on the next day, Friday, and there is the expense which is incurred, too, for meals,, and so on. So we have this difficulty, apart from the difficulties mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham, that, naturally, Members who have constituency engagements at the weekends, and have to travel a long way away, cannot get here. So the business of making a Private Member's Bill an Act is an almost impossible task, for it is an almost impossible task for a Member to get 100 other Members to be here to support him.
170
Because we have our Private Members' Bills business on Friday, considerable numbers of Members utilise this as an opportunity to evade participating in any controversial issue. Is this good enough? Is it any wonder that the public begin to be cynical when they find that Members absent themselves and have got a good excuse, which they would not have on a Wednesday, to be absent on a Friday, so they cannot be in any danger of offending any section of opinion within their constituencies? I think procedure ought to be adopted so that it is more difficult for a Member to evade participating upon a controversial issue. We should not have a procedure which enables him to dodge some of the major issues, albeit ones which impinge on human relationships, as we have at present.
The worst effects are undoubtedly that a cabal not representative of opinion in or outside this House can prevent decisions from being taken, and this is happening again and again and generally means that any small group, however out of touch it may be with public opinion, frustrates this House, and prevents any expression of opinion taking place. I do not believe that this is a healthy contribution to the life of this House of Commons.
I believe that what perhaps above everything else should be reconsidered is whether Private Members' Bills can be taken on Wednesdays, whether the time which is given to Private Members' Motions could be given to Private Members' Bills. I think that this would be a genuine contribution to overcoming some of the problems. It would mean we would have Members here, and it would mean, even if the Closure position remained the same, that there would be a genuine possibility of having representative opinion on any issue brought before the House.
I trust that the Leader of the House will take note of what has been said, and that these opinions will not be consigned to limbo. Already our status as Members is a shrinking status; already we are being reduced to an extraordinarily minor rÔle. Unless we look after ourselves here, we shall not deserve the respect and regard which we demand from the nation.
3.6 p.m.
Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I
should just like to say that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) did me the courtesy of saying he intended to raise this matter, bearing in mind, I think, that I had bad luck with a Bill in the last Session. I would say that I think there is a case for perhaps treating in rather a different manner a Bill which is virtually an all-party, agreed Bill as distinct from a Bill which is purely a one-man Bill or a tiny minority Bill.
I think that the real crux of the question of the Closure is the question of how many Members are necessary for it. I do not know that I want to go the wholeway with the hon. Member for Dagenham and the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) in saying we need a full Select Committee to go into the whole thing. Through our usual procedure for amending our rules from time to time gradually as the years go by, we might perhaps ask that in this Session of Parliament the Committee might very well consider whether or not in the rules applying to Private Members' Bills some distinction be made between those which are all-party Bills and those which are not.
I believe we could get that matter dealt with in the ordinary course of the Sessional procedure and thus perhaps meet the point concerning both hon.
Members.
3.7 p.m.
Mr. Marcus Lipton: I think that the Leader of the House is now convinced by the cogency of the arguments which have been submitted to him in connection with Private Members' Bills procedure. It is quite clear, as, I think, the Leader of the House will himself admit, that the dice are very heavily loaded against any private Member who wants to introduce a Private Member's Bill, whether an all-party Measure as described by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) or what he called a one-man Bill.
Whatever the nature of the Private Member's Bill is, it is subject to very many handicaps, and I do hope that the Leader of the House will take this opportunity to cover himself with imperishable glory by announcing that he
172
is prepared to give sympathetic consideration to the arguments which have been brought to his notice.
The points can be summarised very briefly under five heads. We have to try to make it easier for private Members to introduce Bills—with, of course, the approval of the House. In the first case, the rule relating to the number required to carry the Closure ought to be abolished, and a simple majority ought to suffice for the purpose of enabling the Question to be put. Secondly—and I hope that the Patronage Secretary will take note of this—some of us are beginning to take strong exception to the habit which is growing of Government supporters suddenly appearing for the first time at four o'clock on a Friday afternoon and shouting "Object" without having heard a word of the debates, and sometimes at the instigation, or at least with the connivance, of the Government Whips. That is something to which both sides of the House ought to give attention.
The third point is that no permission should be given to hold a count on a Friday, because that is also a device sometimes deliberately employed for the purpose of killing a useful private Member's effort.
Fourthly, the suggestion that time for Private Members' Bills should be found on Wednesdays is worth considering, because Private Members' Motions could be dealt with just as easily on a Friday as on a Wednesday.
Fifthly—this is a serious point referred to already—we do not want to see a repetition of what happened on at least one occasion when a Government spokesman rose just before four o'clock and deliberately talked a Bill out.
Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison rose—
Mr. Lipton:I am not prepared to give way at the moment, because I am just about to sit down. After I have sat down, the hon. and gallant Gentleman can say whatever he likes or whatever the House is willing to allow him to say.
I hope that the Leader of the House will pay some attention to the points which have been brought to his notice because they reveal an injustice and a

173
hardship which adversely affect the way in which private Members are able to carry out their work.
Sir H. Harrison: I merely wanted to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he remembers an occasion eleven years ago, on a Private Members' Motions day, when I had the second Motion, and just as the first Motion was dying, he came into the Chamber, not having been there before, and made half-an-hour's speech which defeated my Motion.
3.10 p.m.
Mr. William Yates: I am sorry that I was not here when this debate arose. It seems to be more and more forgotten in this House that we sit here as private Members. Every now and (lien one is reminded forcibly that more and more time is being passed into the hands of the Executive or by agreement through the official channels of the Opposition. Therefore, I thought that it would not be amiss for me today to say that I hope that the Leader of the House will do all that he possibly can to be certain that those of us who willingly support the Government or the Opposition Front Bench do not forget their primary function here, which is to discharge their duties to their constituents by whom they have been returned.
I can tell the Leader of the House, whom I am glad to see in his new rÔle, that I will do everything in my power, with the one vote that I possess, to be quite certain that when it comes to a division of opinion between the rights of the private Member and the rights of the Executive, the rights and privileges and all that belongs to a private Member are sustained. I hope that the Leader of the House will bear this in mind when he replies.
3.12 p.m.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd:I have listened very carefully to what the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) has said. He is a very senior Member of the House and, therefore, his views deserve very serious consideration. I have also listened to what has been said by my hon. Friends and other hon. Members. I certainly hope to safeguard the rights of private Members as far as I can. I would point
174
out that the Motion before the House is a consolidation of an advance in the rights of private Members.
Two important points have been raised during this discussion in regard to the procedure on Fridays—in regard to the Closure and the count. In a way it is a somewhat difficult matter because, on the one hand, there is the conflict between the right of hon. Members to show approval or disapproval of particular legislation and on the other hand there is the natural desire of other hon. Members to give their legislative projects an airing.
However, I promise to consider what has been said today. I am not sure whether this will bring me imperishable glory. The glory of the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) perished quite quickly when my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) intervened. But I will consider what has been said today and also review what has been said previously. I am quite prepared to consider the Select Committee proposal. I hope that, with that undertaking, the House will now pass the Motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That—

(1) public bills other than Government bills shall have precedence over Government business on 17th January, 31st January, 14th February, 28th February, 13th March, 10th April, 24th April, 8th May, 12th June and 26th June;

(2) private members' notices of motions shall have precedence over Government business on 13th December, 24th January, 7th February, 21st February, 6th March, 20th March, 17th April, 1st May, 5th June and 19th June, and ballots for these notices shall be held after questions on 27th November, 15th January, 22nd January, 5th February, 19th February, 4th March, 8th April, 15th April, 13th May and 3rd June respectively;

(3) on Monday, 16th March, Monday, 27th April, Thursday. 18th June and Tuesday, 14th July private members' notices of motions shall have precedence until seven o'clock, and ballots for these notices shall be held after questions on Tuesday, 3rd March, Tuesday, 14th April, Thursday, 4th June and Tuesday, 30th June respectively;

(4) no notices of motions shall be handed in for any of the days on which private members' notices have precedence under this order in anticipation of those ballots.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  QUEEN'S SPEECH

    DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS
    [SECOND DAY]
    Order read for resuming adjourned
    debate on Question[12th November]:
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:—
    Most Gracious Sovereign,
    We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
    Question again proposed.
    Mr. Speaker: I think that it will be for the convenience of the House if I report what I believe to be the desired arrangements for the continuation of this debate. It is proposed, I understand, to continue the general debate today and to concentrate attention on Thursday on the economic situation and on Friday on overseas affairs. What we debate on Monday and Tuesday will depend on the selection of Amendments which I have not yet selected.
    3.16 p.m.
    Mr. John Rankin: When the House adjourned yesterday evening I was referring briefly to a recent book published by Senator Fulbright in which the challenge is offered to the politician as to whether man shall control science or science shall control man. The Senator describes a somewhat highly compartmentalised society which I am certain that, if it is possible, both sides of the House would want to avoid.
    To me, therefore, it was rather strange that the Queen's Speech and the Prime Minister in most of his speeches made in Kinross and also in the one he made in the House yesterday have made little reference to this major problem. Rather, the right hon. Gentleman has concentrated on offering us certain very difficult questions which he calls upon us to answer. Today I want to put a question to him.
    176
    Before this debate terminates next week, will the Government tell us, at least as clearly as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition put it at Scarborough, exactly what policy they have in mind to control the increasing powers of the robot in shaping human affairs.
    There are a great many more questions that I should like to put to the Prime Minister but, unfortunately, circumstances somewhat determine the length of the speech which I must deliver today. However, I want to put to him another question which I also think is of great importance to the country as a whole. The Queen's Speech contained the following statement:
    "My Government will continue their efforts to promote peace and stability in South and South-East Asia."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1963; Vol. 684, c. 5.]
    Reading that, I wondered whether the right hon. Gentleman had seen the Baltimore Sun of 14th October in which this statement is made:
    "When Robert S. McNamara was inspecting South Vietnamese defences recently, he paused curiously before a display of weapons captured from the Communist Viet Cong. Pointing to one in the pile, the Secretary of Defence asked: 'This one's from Communist China, isn't it?'. 'No' replied a Vietnamese officer.' It's an American 57 mm. recoilless rifle, seized by the Viet Cong and recaptured by us.' McNamara, blushing, turned to General Maxwell D. Tavlor, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, and said, 'My God, I didn't recognize it'. McNamara had reason to feel embarrassed. For the biggest supplier of modern weapons to the Viet Congguerillas is the United States."
    I put that statement before the right hon. Gentleman because he was the Joint Chairman of the Geneva Conference which was supposed to bring to Vietnam and to South-East Asia the peace and stability referred to in the Queen's Speech.
    If he is unaware of what is happening, will he now, as Prime Minister, take up the matter with his Foreign Secretary and see what can be done to prevent America supplying arms to her opponents to continue a war which she tells us that she is trying to bring to an end?
    I wish to deal particularly with two points which were made yesterday by the Prime Minister. He is reported as saying:
    "…if there is a line which has to be closed in the Highlands … then adequate alternative transport must be provided."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1963; Vcl. 684, c. 41]

    177
    I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has seen the Report issued recently by the Kilbrandon Committee entitled, "Transport Services in the Highlands and Islands". This is a Report by a Committee appointed by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor. Among the members are people whose names are distinguished in Scottish life and in the country generally. On page 28 of the Report appears this statement:
    "It cannot be too frequently stated that if the Highland road system is to catch up with the development of road transport, and still more if road transport has to expand to fill the vacuum left by any contraction of rail transport, then substantial capital expenditure is needed on these main roads and at a much higher rate of progress and investment than is contemplated at the moment."
    These concluding words give us reason to think. Because in spite of all the good things that the Prime Minister said yesterday are contained in the Queen's Speech, here we have a Committee, which reported in the first quarter of this year, saying that at present the Government are not in this instance even contemplating the necessary expenditure to achieve their desires.
    In the same paragraph of the Report—dealing with specific road difficulties in the Highlands—we are told:
    "The desirability of improvement is recognised but we record with concern that no early date for construction is contemplated; in particular, the trunk roads to Mallaig and Kyle will not be completely reconstructed until before the mid 1970's."
    That is being said by this Committee at a time when the Government are actually in the process of closing essential railway services in the Highlands of Scotland;where now, and for the future, there will be no effectvie alternative transport services.
    I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will pay attention to the conclusions of this distinguished Committee which I have quoted and will tell us that he has decided to stay the execution of the death sentence on certain Highland railway transport and amend the words which he used yesterday so that they read:
    "No railway line will be closed in the Highlands of Scotland until adequate alternative transport has been provided."
    Miss Margaret Herbison: Would not my hon. Friend be inclined to change even the wording
    178
    which he suggests so as to cover not only the Highlands but Scotland as a
    whole?
    Mr. A. V. Hilton: And Great Britain.
    Mr. Rankin: I am dealing with one point on which the Prime Minister was cross-examined pretty closely yesterday, and I am providing a reply to the false atmosphere which he created when he was referring to this matter. The Kilbrandon Report deals only with Highland transport. I have no objection to what my hon. Friend has suggested. I am sufficiently broad-minded to embrace the suggestion of my hon. Friend who comes from the farming area of South-West Norfolk. I am no mere nationalist.
    The Prime Minister is reported as having said yesterday:
    "…there are now at this moment more houses being built than at any time since the war."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1963; Vol. 684, c. 40.]
    If the right hon. Gentleman means what, in their literal sense, those words actually say, of course no one can confute him. But if he is telling us what the yare generally understood to imply in the dialectics of this House, which is that they are based on the most recent annual report of the Government, then his claim, so far as it concerns Scotland, is completely unjustified by the figures provided by one of his Departments.
    To prove what I say, I have extracted figures of the houses completed in Scotland in 1962. I take the return which was issued to Parliament in the closing days of July this year. That return shows that in Scotland, in 1962, 26,761 houses were built. In 1957, the number built was 32,437. I choose 1957 because in that year, during the Committee stage of the Housing Bill, the Scottish Minister in charge of the Bill, speaking for the Government, said that they had more or less solved the housing problem in Scotland. In that same year the housing shortage in the City of Glasgow was standing at the appalling figure of 100,000. Some of those on the waiting list had been on it for 15 or 20 years. Others had been waiting even longer.
    That was what the Tory Government in 1957 called "solving the housing

    179
    problem". Today, the number of homeless in my city is 80,523. Nor will that number disappear in the next quarter of a century because, under the redevelopment plans now in operation, to clear the 100,000 houses which have to be cleared by 1985, 60,000 families will be left homeless; for only 40,000 new houses are permitted in the place of the 100,000, while at the same time a mere additional 5,000 persons to meet that waiting list surplus have found accommodation since the overspill solution of the Government was imposed upon us in 1957.
    An analysis of the figures in the Housing Report for 1963 shows an even more alarming picture. The fall between 1957 and 1962 in housing output was 5,666; not the increase which the right hon. Gentleman claimed was taking place. If we look at the figures more closely we see that in 1962, of the 26,000 houses produced, 18,788 were built by local authorities in Scotland, as against 28,327 which had been produced by local authorities in 1957; a fall of 9,500 in local authority output.
    We must remember that the great majority of working-class people depend for their new houses on the local authority. While this fall in local authority output of housing was going on, the number of houses built by private owners in the years I have mentioned rose from 3,500 in 1957 to 7,784 in 1962. In other words, while the housing output by local authorities decreased by 9,500 the production of private owners had increased by over 4,000.
    I want to make clear that I welcome the growth in output of houses by private owners, but these figures lead to this conclusion: that the increase in private output was obtained at the expense of the decrease in public output. Which is wrong. It leads to this second conclusion. The Government should have increased the resources available for new houses in order that both sections which produce houses, private or public, should have the chance to increase their output at the same time, and it is obvious that this was not done. Otherwise, the local authorities which are only too anxious to increase output would not have reduced, or been compelled to reduce, the number of houses between 1957 and 1962.
    180
    I leave the matter at that point, to my regret; but perhaps to the relief of hon. Members on both sides of the House who, naturally, are anxious to hear what my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) has to say. I have dealt with two very important issues affecting Scotland; also two other issues to which I hope the Prime Minister will devote his attention at a very early opportunity because they involve the peace of the world, about which he committed himself and his Government yesterday.
    I say to him, and to hon. Members opposite, that Scotland has long rejected Toryism and all that Toryism means. We hope that when the General Election comes our friends in England will follow the example set by Scotland in many General Elections of the past. If they follow in our footsteps the next Government which meets in the Palace of Westminster will be a Labour Government. And that cannot come too quickly.
    3.38 p.m.
    Mr. George Brown: The setting of the debate which began yesterday on the Queen's Speech quite clearly is the remark which the Prime Minister made not to the House but to the party meeting which elected him as Leader the other day. The Times reported that he said:
    "There can be no good Government unless there is a Conservative Government. From this moment on, the fact that there is a GeneralElection ahead of us must never be out of our minds. Every act that we take, every attitude that we strike, every speech that we make, in Parliament or elsewhere, must have that in mind."
    A more open declaration by any Prime Minister that his whole horizon is bounded by party considerations surely can never have been made. I wonder what is made of it by any Conservative who tries to pretend in the country that he is a democrat, because by definition democracy means more than one choice of party government. A declaration that there can be no good Government unless there is a Conservative Government is but a short step from a declaration that one is entitled to make sure that the process of democracy never happens. It may well be that the Prime Minister did not mean what he said and that he was merely feeding something to the goldfish who were voting for him.

    181
    But certainly the Queen's Speech seems to have been put together with that outlook in mind. It includes a large number of things put in obviously to satisfy what are regarded by the Prime Minister, or by those who advise him, as political considerations with the election in mind.
    Even so, there are some odd omissions. The Prime Minister was asked about some of them yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) and, perhaps understandably, he preferred not to mention them. I want, therefore, to repeat them to the Chancellor of the Exchequer who has been put in to bat today. I am not very clear whether he is in as a displaced person from the economic debate tomorrow or as a candidate for the office of deputy Prime Minister, which is vacant. If it is the latter, let me tell him that I am not sure that he is wise. This is quite clearly an off year for deputies. He might be well advised to defer that until 1964. Even years may be better.
    Why is it that in the Queen's Speech there is no reference whatever to the need for attending to social security benefits? Why is there no reference to the needs of the old-age pensioners, the sick orthe widows, every category of whom have a very great claim and, I should have thought, a prior claim compared With some other groups? Is the answer that they do not figure in the list of election targets which the research experts have given to the Tory Party? Or is it that the Tory Party honestly regard these people as not having a claim for attention at this moment? We ought to have an answer about that.
    Secondly, there is no reference at all to Wales or to any of the substantial problems there. It is interesting that when the Prime Minister yesterday referred to areas which were to have special attention, he remembered what he called the central area of Scotland, he remembered the North-East, he said that he had been reminded by his hon. Friends of Northern Ireland—and there he finished.
    There are great problems in Wales, although Wales is not the only other area with special problems. Under the Conservative Party even Cornwall has become an area with very serious problems. But Wales has many special
    182
    problems calling for attention—not only the problem of an under-developed declining area in one part of the country but also the depopulation of mid-Wales and the problem which hits South Wales very hard, as it hits other parts of the country—the problem of leaseholders, who have long been overdue for a measure of relief. But there is no reference whatever in the Queen's Speech, even though it includes so much else, to these problems, and we ought to know why.
    There is no mention of the Newsom Committee or of the problems which that Committee presented to the nation. It is odd that space was found in the Queen's Speech for reference to the Robbins Committee and the need for the expansion of university and other higher education facilities but that there is no reference to what is, if one reads the Report, possibly a much greater tragedy—the failure to provide adequately for the great bulk of our younger teen-agers. Iam bound to ask whether the fact that the Newsom Report is not mentioned and we are not offered any indication of special action there means that the Government are burying the Newsom Report under some attention to the other Report. We ought to know what they have in mind.
    In addition to surprising omissions, there are some odd ambiguities. I return to something which the Prime Minister discussed with my right hon. Friend yesterday. At the bottom of the first page of the printed version of the Queen's Speech there is a reference to the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland which reads:
    "proposals will be laid before you to transfer the responsibilities of the Government of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland to the territorial Governments."
    As it stands, that is a little worrying to those of us who feel that something must happen in Southern Rhodesia before that could be carried out. When asked about it the Prime Minister volunteered a phrase of his own. He seemed to me to say that despite those words, he regarded himself and his Government as absolutely pledged to see that in that area, as in others, the majority must rule.
    I took that to mean, therefore, that there will be no transfer of responsibilities to a Government in that territory

    183
    until a constitution is evolved which provides that the majority in that territory in fact rules. That is what I understood the Prime Minister to say and to mean. In the absence of any dispute from him, I must assume that that is so. In that case, I welcome it, but I hope very much that (ion. and right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite understand equally clearly what the Prime Minister said.
    In the same way, there is an ambiguity about the proposals on agriculture. We are told in the Queen's Speech that we are to have proposals to prevent imports from undermining the market. The Prime Minister gave as an example of this the Danish bacon agreement, which was promptly violently attacked in a speech from the Conservative benches towards the end of the debate as being unsatisfactory. He went on to say that these proposals would be made by agreement with other nations.
    In fairness to the producers, one is bound to ask what happens if we do not get agreement with other nations. Is that the end of the matter, or does the Prime Minister envisage proposals which would impose compulsory quotas? If it is intended to impose compulsory quotas, we want to know in which way the consumer, the housewife, will be protected. What is the machinery by which this is to be done? If there are to be compulsory quotas, will this be in accord with our international trading obligations? Between what is in the Queen's Speech and what the Prime Minister said there is a tremendous gap, and we are entitled to ask the Chancellor to tell us this afternoon something more about what the Government have in mind.
    Having raised these points of omission and ambiguity, I wish to pick out the three main areas into which, as the Prime Minister said, the proposals in the Queen's Speech can be divided and in which it seems to us that the proposals are inadequate, irrelevant or still ambiguous. The three areas are those of external relations and defence; the proposals relating to the social capital programme; and the proposals which relate to the economic policy required to support both. I should like to look at the three areas, just as the Prime
    184
    Minister did yesterday, and to pick up some passages and points made by him, but first of all to tell him that there is one fact which must be stated clearly: if Britain is in a run-down state, then that is totally the responsibility of the present occupants of the Treasury Bench, including the Prime Minister. It appears to be the basis of the Prime Minister's submission, judging by his speeches in Kinross, that Britain is in a run-down state, is in need of modernisation and is in need of a crash programme of construction and building in all kinds of directions. If he says that, then in his view Britain must be run-down. If we are not, I do not see that we need his crash programme. If we need it, we have not got it.
    Hon. Members opposite may play with this inside the House, but the general public is of the view that these gaps exist. The Prime Minister is trying very hard to persuade the general public that, unlike his predecessor, he and his Government mean to fill the gaps that exist. My point is that, if the gaps exist, there should not be any misunderstanding: this is not the responsibility of some Prime Minister and some Government not now here. This is the total responsibility of the present occupants of the Treasury Bench, including the Prime Minister himself. They are the guilty men. They are the men who have presided over our affairs for twelve years. The Prime Minister has been a senior member of that Government for a large part of that time. The record cannot be expunged merely by a set of new promises. We have had the promises before in the same words. I commend hon. Members opposite to look at the Gracious Speeches of 1954 and 1958. We then had the same promises in virtually the same words.
    I think that the electors of Luton and—let us be clear—rather more than half the total electorate of Kinross either voted against or did not vote for the Government candidate, because they are very clear about this. "To be fooled once", I think the electors of Luton and many of those of Kinross said, "is a mark of trust. To be fooled twice can be a mark of grace and a forgiving nature. But to be fooled three times by the same people in the very same words would cast doubt upon one's equipment in the upper storey".
    The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home):I think that the right hon. Gentleman is basing this part of his speech on a wrong premise. I have never suggested that the country was in a run-down state. What I have said in speech after speech is that we have created a sound condition from which we can accelerate.
    Mr. Brown:The Prime Minister will have very great difficulty in making that one run outside. I do not have the reference here, but I think I have seen a report of a recent speech by the right hon. Gentleman in which he used the phrase "museum piece".
    The Prime Minister: I used that phrase about the party opposite.
    Mr. Brown: I do not think so. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite who are laughing will find that they are laughing too soon. I think that the reference was to Britain, but, as I have not the reference here. I will not pursue it at this moment. I will merely say that somebody who has just come from the place at the other end of the corridor is not too well placed to talk about museum pieces.
    I want to examine the Prime Minister's defence of the record, which he said yesterday, and in a way said again this afternoon, was a record of preparation for what they are now about to do. This seems to me to be rather like an habitual criminal justifying a record of twelve years' continual robbery and other crimes with the plea that, if he had not been guilty of all those things for twelve years, he could not reform now, so it was really all preparation for him to be able to improve.
    I will now look at the three areas that the Prime Minister chose. I take first that of external relations and defence, on which the Prime Minister spent some time yesterday. The record here is again well summed up in the Prime Minister's own words at the Guildhall, which I had the pleasure of watching him deliver on television. The right hon. Gentleman was addressing himself to the Foreign Secretary who was about to undertake the enormous task of changing men's hearts and minds all over the world. As the Prime Minister wished him well and sent him off he said this, "I have recently been
    186
    in one or two capitals in the world. Others have been to other capitals. You will find"—he said to the Foreign Secretary—
    "that the whole world is longing for British influence and leadership to be exercised."
    I could not put it better. After three and a half years of the right hon. Gentleman himself, after the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) some time before that, and after the previous Prime Minister's term at the Foreign Office, the Prime Minister's summing up to his successor is—
    "You will find that the whole world is longing for British influence and leadership to be exercised."
    What is required in order that Britain should be able to exercise influence and leadership in the world? I believe that it is not to exchange one man for another. As the television cameras swung rather conveniently from the Prime Minister to the Foreign Secretary, my doubts were answered. I saw why he got it and the other chap did not. Therefore, I do not think that changing one for the other, and not necessarily in the right direction, is what is required here. What is required here is a fundamental change in British attitudes and actions in relation to four things—first, a fundamental change in our attitude at the United Nations; secondly, a fundamental change in our attitude to and behaviour about the racial conflict in the world to which the Prime Minister referred; thirdly, a fundamental change in our attitude towards and our degree of assistance to the developing countries, not exclusively but particularly those in the Commonwealth; and, fourthly, a fundamental change in our assessment of the inter-related issues of policy, strategy and weapon provision within the Atlantic Alliance.
    On every one of these crucial areas the British Government's national policy has been out of step both with our own best national interests and with any essential moral basis for leadership and influence in the world. Despite the Prime Minister's words yesterday, the Tory Government, of which he has been a leading member for so long, have supported the United Nations only when they have judged it convenient to do so. After all, the Prime Minister himself was the man responsible for a speech at Berwick-upon-Tweed on 26th December, 1961—I have the handout which the Central Office took the

    187
    trouble to issue at the time—in which, among other things, he complained of the serious falling away from the principles of the Charter, which, in his view, placed Britain in an appalling dilemma. The whole of that speech consisted of an attack upon the United Nations and an attempted alibi for actions which he knew were not in accordance with the requirements of our membership.
    But, in addition to speeches attacking the United Nations and bolstering its enemies, the Government have used the veto on occasions—and very recently—when they have thought that the decisions of the rest of the world were inconvenient to us. Again, when racial issues have arisen, when questions of liberty and oppression have been discussed in the United Nations, the Government have consistently either placed us with the abstentions or have left us voting with the only remaining defenders of colonialism and oppression. That has to change.
    Secondly, the Government have been chronically unable—rather than unwilling—to make an adequate contribution to the aid which is essential in the short term to the under-developed countries. We have not provided a real contribution of technical and scientific aid in the form of men, machines or money to help the attack on hunger and poverty in the emerging nations.
    Thirdly, the Government have also repeatedly reached the wrong conclusions in their assessment of the requirements of the Alliance and of Britain's place in it and, therefore, of our whole defence strategy and provision. All of this will be gone into in more detail by both sides on Friday, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) and others hope to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. But I must refer—and the House would expect me to do so—in some detail to the issue which the Prime Minister raised yesterday about the independent nuclear deterrent.
    We noted and accept his declaration that he proposes to carry this issue to the British people So far the Government have tried to carry two other issues to the people. The first was the cost of the proposals we were making for the rebuilding of Britain—and it is one which they are not in a very strong posi-
    188
    tion to carry to the people now. The second was the issue of nationalisation, which died a rather marked death at Luton. We shall be very willing indeed to argue the question of nuclear weapons before the electorate.
    I believe that the nation is further advanced on this question of the nuclear deterrent than some right hon. and hon. Members. I believe that the people outside recognise that this is much too complex and too vital an issue to be dealt with by slogans or by the loaded, issue-begging questions of the wife-beating variety which the Prime Minister asked yesterday. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I hope that hon. Members opposite will support the Prime Minister in wanting to have this out between us and will allow me to develop our case. There are some issues which we in this House and the nation as a whole must get clear.
    The first thing that the Prime Minister is not quite clear about is that the whole question of nuclear policy has changed radically over the last five years with the enormous change in the balance of nuclear power and of nuclear possibilities between East and West. The right hon. Gentleman has frequently said that this changed nuclear balance between the two blocs has also changed much else in international relations, policies and possibilities. It has also changed radically the whole nature of nuclear weapons policies, but perhaps in no respect as much as it has affected the small, essentially marginal additions to the nuclear arsenal of the Alliance.
    The case for these additions, whatever its merits before the change, has become quite different. Unless one sees the small, marginal, national addition as a first strike weapon, it has no relevance at all, for it will have no place in a second strike. One must be careful how far one goes here, but I think that this is pretty well known and has been written about; but in the targeting of our forces and the American forces we all know that this situation has been allowed for and that the Royal Air Force has been targeted in accordance with that fact.
    The issue is now much less a matter of ability to produce nuclear weapons than the ability to provide a modern delivery capability. The development of missiles, of orbiting satellites and other

    189
    delivery platforms has changed completely the whole dimension of the effort required, not only in money but in science and material, to be a nuclear Power at all.1
    It becomes pretty impossible at this point to see Britain, with her size, her annual output of science graduates and her limited resources, as a nuclear Power in any real sense of the word. We have not got the resources, and it was indeed this that made the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woking (Mr. Watkinson), as Minister of Defence, reverse the decision made by his predecessor. That was the issue that led to the cancellation of Blue Streak, and when the Government—not us—took the country out of the rocket delivery capability business they took the irrevocable decision.
    The Prime Minister, who was a member of the Government at the time when this was done, said yesterday that our policy would produce an irrevocable decision. The absurd thing is that the Government took the irrevocable decision three years ago. When the right hon. Gentleman says to us that if this decision were ever taken it would be impossible to get back into the business, he is repeating what I said to the Government in the debate on the cancellation of Blue Streak. The difference between us is that I accepted the logic of the Government's decision, which they took unilaterally and inescapably for reasons they believed right and proper. The Government took us out of the delivery capability field, and therefore, in my submission, out of the independent, the truly independent, nuclear deterrent field.
    I made no secret at the time of the fact that I was changing my position on the question of an independent deterrent largely as a result of the decision the Government had made. But the difference between the Government and myself is that I faced the logic then and have accepted it since, whereas they have been behaving like ostriches and trying to pretend that it did not happen.
    Sir Arthur Vere Harvey:In order to get into perspective what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, would he say whether he discounts the French effort to become a nuclear Power, as that has a bearing on our future?
    Mr. Brown: I shall be coming to that n a moment, but I will say immediately that I have recently said to leading Frenchmen, and will be saying again in Paris in a fortnight, that all the facts of life from which we have been unable to escape will apply to them and that they will find that they will be unable to escape and that in the expenditure of vast effort, time and money the same lessons will apply to them in due course. I shall come to what I think are the consequences of that.
    The next issue to try to get clear is that the Government have consistently tried to deny the logic of the position, and the Prime Minister himself tried to escape from it. Successively, we have had Blue Steel, which was to be a stand-off bomb to keep our V-bombers flying, Skybolt, which was to replace Blue Steel when it turned out that that could not be continued, and the Polaris submarines when Sky-bolt could not be made to continue. I now see it suggested that it is to be the TSR2. Those who know about these things know that it is not until now that part of the case for the TSR2 has been its use as a continuation of our strategic nuclear force. This is very much an afterthought.
    There is a very large question mark over the TSR2 connected with its cost and its lateness and the problems of its black boxes, and a very large question mark over its suitability for this role, especially remembering its limited range and limited warhead-carrying capacity.
    All of these devices have been or will be fabulously expensive. Blue Steel dropped out earlier on and we do not yet know about TSR2. There are, therefore, two left, Skybolt and Polaris. Sky-bolt has been currently replaced by Polaris, but there is one argument which applies to both Skybolt and Polaris but not to TSR2 or to Blue Steel. Neither Skybolt nor Polaris could be regarded in any real sense as in the independent possession of this country.
    However we obtain them and on whatever terms we obtain them, some facts remain true. We are dependent for their supply, for the fulfilment of the contract, on the United States of

    191
    America. Not so long ago, on 24th December, 1962, in relation to something else the Minister of Defence made it clear that he was not sure that we could always rely on the Americans to fulfil contracts. He was then talking about Skybolt, but the same argument could obviously be applied to Polaris.
    We are dependent on the Americans for fulfilling the contract and dependent on them thereafter for any replacements, for it is obvious that replacements for all time could not be part of the initial contract. What is much more important is that we are dependent upon them for all time for the continuing "know-how". We are not discussing inanimate pieces of concrete. These are highly sophisticated weapons whose characteristics are developing and changing all the time. It would be very little use having today's mark of missile if we could not be kept up to date with changing and developing techniques and scientific "know-how" and could not be sure that we would get the next mark or the next but one.
    When the Polaris agreement was signed, there was some discussion between the previous Prime Minister and me about which mark of Polaris we were to have. I will not bore the House by reading large chunks of HANSARD where the former Prime Minister's replies can be seen. He said that we were to have one which I was criticising and another which was to be called the A3. When I was in America a fortnight ago, I discovered that the A3 had already gone and that the current version was a mark which could not have been part of the arrangements made at Nassau. So we are totally dependent at every stage on the willingness of the providing party to keep providing us with the new developments. Whatever else that is, it cannot be called independence.
    The next issue to get clear is that even if that did not apply, we could not in practice go independent, go it alone, nuclear-wise. Situations in which we could do not exist. I believe that the Prime Minister has indicated that the Suez context, the Middle East context, would not be one in which he would foresee us acting as a nuclear Power. If we are not to use it in the Middle East context, in what context are we proposing to act as an independent nuclear
    192
    Power, that is to say, to threaten and, if need be, to use nuclear weapons irrespective of whether anybody else comes to our aid and support? Such situations do not exist.
    There is only one claim that stands up. It is the claim with which the Prime Minister tried to charge us yesterday. This is a claim to which he must be guilty, if "guilty" is the word. I have in my hand not only the speech of the present Minister of Defence, but a whole host of quotations from the previous Prime Minister, the former Minister of Defence, the secretary of the Conservative Party Defence Committee and individual hon. Members opposite, as well as the present Minister of Aviation. They all make the point that the only claim for us trying to be an independent nuclear Power, or, to put it more rationally, pretending we are, is that we are afraid that we will not at all times be supported by our American Allies. The claim is that the Government want to be in a position where they can blackmail our American allies into a policy. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite must let me put it this way because the Prime Minister thought yesterday that he was putting us on the political spot with words and phrases which he chose not because of their literal meaning, but because he thought that they would be good political catch phrases outside the House. That is why I said that we were willing and ready to accept his challenge to go on with this argument.My right hon. Friend has offered to meet him and between us we will meet anybody on the Treasury Bench who wishes to debate this issue anywhere.
    The Government must say whether they believe, as at various times they have said or implied, that the Americans are not to be trusted as our allies, or whether, as the Prime Minister tried to say yesterday, they are to be trusted as our allies and how it was that we dared to spread the contrary story.
    I do not believe that the Prime Minister was right yesterday. His case was that only nuclear Powers would be allowed at the conference table. What conference are we talking about? If only nuclear Powers are to be there—and let us assume that they include us—think of the nations of the world who will not be there. What conference issue

    193
    do we think we are going to settle when only Russia, America and ourselves are present at the table? I do not believe this. Indeed, every time American Ministers, or their advisers, or Presidential aides, go to the Continent they go out of their way to assure the Germans and other Continental nations that there is no question of anybody going to the conference table without them. They are the people who not only do not have, but, as the Prime Minister said, have renounced nuclear weapons. and yet they are the ones whom the Americans are assuring will always be at the conference table.
    Why do we assume that the Americans would exclude us from the conference table if we did not have nuclear weapons, although they are assuring the Germans that they would not exclude them? Why do we make this assumption? Has the right hon. Gentleman any basis for it? Has any American ever told him this? I have seen members of this Administration in America as often as most people, and I also knew the leading members of the previous Administration. I have absolutely no ground for believing that the Prime Minister in turn has any ground for believing what he said yesterday.
    The Prime Minister: There is one obvious example, of course—we should not have been at the nuclear test ban treaty talks at all.
    Mr. Brown:I do not know that there is any evidence that we would not have been at the test ban treaty talks. But is the Prime Minister really saying that there would not have been a test ban treaty but for us pretending to be an independent nuclear Power? I heard the President of the United States pay lavish tribute to the previous Prime Minister for his part in that. I was glad to hear it, and I welcomed it—since I was not there as a politician—but no part of that statement was intended to convey that only the British Prime Minister desired it, and if what the Prime Minister is saying goes out it will seem pretty ungracious to our American friends who have been pretty gracious to his Government.
    When the Prime Minister was talking yesterday about a conference table, he was not talking about that kind of treaty,
    194
    because that kind of treaty was merely a declaration, welcome as it is, by the Powers who have nuclear weapons that they will not test in the air again until they have notified each other. The Prime Minister was talking about a conference table around which one settles problems and political issues in the world, and I am answering that point.
    A further point arises from that. The Government's continual reiteration of this fear of being let down in some form or other by the Americans leads to other problems. The Nassau Agreement was itself the birthplace and the midwife of the multilateral force.
    Sir Douglas Glover: It could not be both.
    Mr. Brown:Much as it clearly surprises the hon. Gentleman, he is right in that respect. I trust that he will listen as much to the merits and meanings as to the words themselves.
    It was because of, and out of, the Nassau Agreement that the multilateral force achieved its present status, and I will tell the Prime Minister why. When the Americans were persuaded that they had to agree to some special arrangements with us to maintain some kind of a nuclear force in this country—leave out whether it is genuinely independent or not—they were faced with this consequence, that they then came under pressure from the Germans and others who said, "We cannot have a situation where you make the British into what they call an independent nuclear Power, de Gaulle makes himself into an independent nuclear Power, and we are left out". It was because of—and this contradicts some part of what the Prime Minister said yesterday about Germany—subsequent pressure from the Germans arising out of what happened at Nassau that President Kennedy felt—or his advisers felt—that some nuclear force had to be invented in which the Germans could have a large share of the provision of the systems and of the cost.
    At the moment they do not get the same large share in the command, in the capacity to order its use, but does anybody believe that if we ever start on this road with them paying 40 per cent, of the cost and taking 40 per cent, of the manning provisions that it will stop there from the point of view of command and

    195
    control? We have started—if it ever goes through—on a slippery road, but we got on to it because of the arguments we put forward at Nassau because of our being unwilling to move away from our own illusory independent position.
    I shall now deal with what I think ought to be done.
    Sir John Eden: I want to clear up one point. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the Labour Party will not proceed with the equipment of British defence forces with Polaris and the TSR2?
    Mr. Brown: I like to be polite and give way, but that intervention was a waste of time. I had just said that I would deal with what I think ought to be done.
    There are two issues to be made clear. One is that there is no argument—and the Prime Minister must understand this—which Britain can use in support of her remaining an independent nuclear Power which cannot be used by every other nation in the Western Alliance and by every other nation in the world. It is impossible to say, as the Prime Minister sought to say, that one can draw the line somewhere after America, Britain and France and leave out everybody else. It is not possible to do that. The same argument will be used by them all.
    The second argument is that any attempt to maintain this position—which in my view is not a real one—will divert vast sums of defence money from the already inadequately equipped conventional forces, or vastly increase the total defence bill, and yet in Kinross the Prime Minister talked about the kind of savings that are to come.
    What is our position? First let me say what it is not. When we come to power, it is not our intention to destroy the nuclear force which the Government leave behind. We have never been committed to destroying the V-bomber force if it exists when we come to power.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: We have always said that.
    Mr. Brown: I am making our position clear.
    Mr. William Yates rose—
    Hon. Members: Sit down.
    Mr. Brown:That is not what we shall do. Thereafter, we shall certainly cease trying to maintain beyond the present credibility of this force the illusion of being an independent nuclear Power. We will stop this very costly effort to project into the future, into missile after missile, and into who knows what, what becomes increasingly the sheer illusion of being a nuclear force. [Interruption.] I ask the House to do me a little justice. [Interruption.] Then I will withdraw that and let hon. Members opposite behave as they please.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Let them behave as they really are.
    Mr. Brown: I thought that they might respond, but I take it all back.
    Of course, this decision involves our having to review the position of any programme for future weapons that they leave behind them. That applies to the TSR 2 and to the Polaris submarines. What the incoming Government do depends on the point which that programme has reached when we arrive, and on what other purposes those weapons or vehicles can serve. It is therefore obviously impossible, in advance—[Interruption] Ministers do not know what they are going to do with the TSR 2, and there will be no submarines for a long time yet. Ministers have cancelled things that they have ordered before now.
    What we shall do is to use the position that we take over in respect of existing weapons that are still credible, and existing programmes which they leave us, in order to negotiate within the alliance for a genuine Atlantic alliance nuclear organisation in which we can obtain a greater sharing of the command and of the control of other weapons—not our own alone. We shall use what we have got as the basis for the negotiations and for the creation of some other alliance force that will enable us to do away with—as we hope—the pressure for proliferation.
    Finally, we will use the money thus saved to help us in our desperate need to replace the gap that now exists in our conventional forces.
    Mr. Farcy-Jonesrose—
    Mr. Brown: I am sorry I cannot give way. There will be ample opportunity during the rest of this week for the statement that I have tried to make very carefully to be examined and questioned, and I think that it would be for the convenience of the hon. Member and of the House if I brought my remarks to a conclusion as quickly as I can. I have taken the occasion today to go into some detail on defence, simply because I wanted to pick up the Prime Minister's challenge at the first opportunity. But this is not a defence day and there are one or two points about internal problems to which I wish to refer before I sit down.
    First, I trust that the Chancellor will give us some answers to the questions that the Prime Minister slid over yesterday. The Prime Minister seemed to misunderstand the basis of our criticism of the enormous programme to which the Government have committed themselves in relation to houses, schools, hospitals and transport, in particular. Our criticism is not, as the Prime Minister put it, concerned with what we should wish to cut; our criticism is not that we want to cut at all. Our criticism is contained in the question: does the Prime Minister accept that his programme can be carried out only on certain terms, and does he accept the fact that all the promises contradict past performance because, in the past, the Government have refused these terms?
    On the question of cost—in terms both of money and of physical resources—I ask the Chancellor what is the total annual commitment, and for what period ahead? Does the total annual commitment start next year, or only after the election—and for what period ahead is it envisaged? Secondly, by how much does it exceed the commitment which the previous Prime Minister said would have been involved in our 1959 election programme? Thirdly, since all this and the additional defence bill to which the Prime Minister is also committed must, by definition, exceed the infinitesimal 1 per cent, extra about which he spoke the other night—a figure of 1 per cent, would amount only to £250 million a year, and it must exceed that—where is it coming from?
    198
    Next, how is it physically to be done? How shall we build all these houses—quite right, too—and modernise all the others—quite right, too—and build all the schools—quite right, too—and all the universities which the Prime Minister, in a wonderful phrase at Kinross, said would soon be rolling off the production lines, and also build at the same time the training colleges, and a hospital every 19 days, and all the factories which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development will get into the regional depressed areas—and carry out the vast new road programme? [An HON. MEMBER: "Which would you cut?"] I assume that the Government will not cut any. It happens to be their Queen's Speech and not ours.
    How are they going to do all that at the same time and still leave a totally unrestricted private building construction programme? How are they going to do it? Assuming they are, how will they do it without imposing restrictions upon the private building programme and, at the same time, with a building industry and a building materials industry in their present state of organisation and their present out-of-date techniques?
    I am bound to ask the Chancellor this question: are there to be any priorities in this programme? If so, what are they to be? By what machinery will the priorities, if selected, be made effective? We accept that we can have a public programme of this size, but we also accept the consequences, in terms of priorities and restrictions elsewhere. Do the Government? That is what the internal political argument will be about. It is the difference between, in our case, a plan, and in their case, a mere vague declaration of intention. How will the Government do all this unless at the same time they deal with the spiralling increases in land prices?
    Hon. Members will have seen in the Observer last Sunday the amount by which the wealth of one of our honourable and noble colleagues is likely to rise as a result of the releasing for building use of land in the north-east of England—something over 1 million and one hundred odd acres. If this goes on as it is going on now and the Government try to reach the programme of the size they have announced, they will

    199
    break the back of the Treasury and the local rates. Thus how will the Government deal with land prices? What machinery will they introduce to ensure that land use can be planned over wide areas and how will they bring down the cost of the money that will need to be borrowed to finance this enormous programme?
    Their proposals are not only unanswered in the Queen's Speech. They were unanswered in the Prime Minister's speech yesterday and they have not been answered in any of his speeches in recent days. Unless there is an answer there is only one conclusion to be drawn; that when the right hon. Gentleman said that from this moment on the only thing in their minds must be electioneering, he was speaking the exact and literal truth.
    4.41 p.m.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Reginald Maudling): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) covered a wide range and I will endeavour to do the same. I shall particularly concentrate my remarks on that section of his speech in which he asked for a demonstration of how our programme can be financed and how the resources can be provided. I intend to make that demonstration but I want, first, to comment on his remarks on external policy.
    The right hon. Gentleman said—and we can go into this at greater length later in the week, when there will be a debate on this issue—that there must be a basic change in our attitude to several things; first, the United Nations. The right hon. Gentleman produced a travesty of a speech by my right hon. Friend. I must make it clear that it is not our view that support of the U.N. necessarily means shutting one's eyes to attempts either to distort the original purposes of the Charter or to apply double standards in the operation of the United Nations.
    The right hon. Gentleman talked, secondly, about our attitude to racial conflict. Having had some responsibility at one time at the Colonial Office I can recall what we have done—Kenya, Northern Rhodesia, and so on—and now there is a list of Measures for this
    200
    Session to bring independence to countries of the Commonwealth. For these reasons his remarks were wholly unjustified. Even more unjustified and unfounded was his remark about our aid to the under-developed countries. If he does not recognise how large is our aid and how substantially it has been growing, other countries overseas certainly do. They have read the recent White Paper.
    They know what the British Government have been doing. They know that our aid from Government sources has doubled in the last four or five years and is on a strong upward curve. I welcome this. Nothing gave me more personal satisfaction last year than developing a scheme of aid from surplus capacity, which has linked the surplus capacity of this country to overseas needs and has given greater aid than the balance of payments position would otherwise have made possible.
    The right hon. Member for Belper then spoke at length about his party's attitude to the nuclear deterrent. As he said, he made a statement which we shall study with great care and to which we shall revert. The impression I had was that his main argument was not that we should not have an independent deterrent, but that our independent deterrent was not strong enough. That emerges from his argument. We will continue to advance with confidence the proposition both that we have and should have an independent means in the ultimate to protect our own interests and that the possession of such means has been shown by experience to add to the influence, status and position of this country in the counsels of the world, with benefit not only to us but to the free world as a whole. It will be on these issues that the battle will be joined.
    I turn to the Gracious Speech, which produces a broad plan of continuing and accelerating advance both economically and socially with emphasis particularly on education, higher education, housing—new houses and improvements to houses—productivity in the building industry, industrial training and regional development. As with the Budget, as I remember very well, once again the Opposition cannot or dare

    201
    not find any criticism of what is contained in our proposals. There is a singular coincidence between the two occasions. One further coincidence is that they seem unable to make up their mind whether or not we are doing too little or too much. They must make up their mind on this if they want to be taken seriously as an Opposition.
    Do hon. Members opposite think that our plans are inadequate or excessive? Would their plans be bigger and more expensive or smaller and less expensive? There are the questions we shall want answered. Their criticisms are twofold, as I understand it from the right hon. Gentleman's speech today. First, that our plans are too ambitious, and, secondly, that they are not a development but a change of course. I intend" to demonstrate that both of these arguments are wholly false. But let hon. Members opposite recognise that if they talk about the biggest spending spree and about promises flying like confetti—and these sort of phrases were used by the right hon. Member for Bel-per—they will not be able to advance themselves an even greater and more expensive one. However, I think that they will try to do so when the election comes.
    I intend to give figures on which our plans are based. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) asked yesterday if we would publish a White Paper. I have been considering this. There are many advantages in doing so, but there are technical difficulties, such as timing in relation to the Vote on Account and Estimates. However, there would be a lot of advantages in giving these calculations, as far as possible, in a White Paper. Certainly, as Chancellor of the Exchequer I am concerned that the country as a whole, like the House, should be aware of the weight of burden that we are taking deliberately upon our shoulders. I hope that if we publish the detailed calculations underlying our plans the party opposite will do the same. If it does not I do not see how the public can choose between them.
    It may be that the party opposite does not know the cost. I know that the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) was once very coy about costing his plan for social security. He knew what would happen if he did. If
    202
    we are to put forward the costing of our plans we shall expect the party opposite to have the courage to do the same.
    Since the publication of the Plowden Report we have been working on a five-year forward look at public expenditure. This covers capital and current expenditure of Government and local authorities, investment by nationalised industries and the outgoings of the National Insurance Fund. Public expenditure on this comprehensive definition, to sustain our programme which has been announced, will rise at constant prices, that is in real terms, by about 4 per cent, a year from now until 1967–68.
    I will deal with some of the items as an illustration, but the broad picture is clear. On the figures I have given, our plans are wholly consistent with a 4 per cent, growth rate, but because the public expenditure items do rise in price a little faster than the rest it is likely that the proportion of public expenditure to gross national product may rise from something below 40 per cent, to something above 41 per cent. This is why, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made perfectly clear yesterday, it would be quite wrong to hold out expectations of early or substantial reductions in taxation generally when we have a programme on this scale. We do not intend to delude the public in any way on this matter—we have the disastrous precedent that the Labour Party gave at the last General Election.
    But, of course, the level of taxation on the basis of a public programme on this scale will be intimately affected by the level of savings. This has immensely improved, and that level of savings that has been so formidably high under our administration should not be subjected to the possible dangers of a capital tax and the other things put forward by the party opposite. Therefore, the level of savings that a Conservative Government can look forward to will enable the programme to be carried out at a lower level of taxation than the party opposite could ever hope to achieve.
    I turn now to one or two individual examples of our programme. We shall continue to accelerate the great expansion in education that has taken place over the last ten years. Total expenditure, at constant prices—March, 1963

    203
    prices—will rise from about £1,250 million now to £1,570 million in 1967–68. These figures take account of both the Newsom and the Robbins Reports. They mean an increase in real terms of nearly 6 per cent, per annum in the total expenditure on education.
    I think that this is right, and is in line with our priorities. We, too, have priorities, and education is one of the foremost of them. We are meeting it by providing funds on this scale, and by allowing for both the greatly increased school and technical college building programme recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education, and acceleration elsewhere throughout the education programme.
    The point I want to make is that it is a further instalment in the progress that has already carried educational expenditure from 3 per cent, of the national income, as in 1951, to 4 per cent, in 1960, and will have carried it before the end of this Parliament from 4 per cent, to 5 per cent. The party opposite scoffed, or tried to scoff, when my right hon. Friend talked of accelerating on the basis of a programme already carried through, but those are the figures that prove it. I know that hon. Members opposite do not like the figures, but they asked for them. I am sorry they do not like them when they get them.
    Road expenditure will rise, at constant 1963 prices, from roughly £360 million now to about £475 million in 1967-68, compared with £150 million when we came into power. Here is the measure of the progress already made, and from that basis we are adding acceleration. Hospitals—increasing capital expenditure over the years referred to by about 10 per cent, a year. We have had expansion in housing based on the recent expansion of housebuilding to the current record level of house construction, and recent increases in productivity in the building industry.
    I have been giving these figures at the request of the Opposition, and it is with great pleasure that I have given them. They show quite clearly that the programmes we are putting before the country are both practical and sustainable, and are an extension and a logical continuation of all that has been achieved
    204
    in the last years. Moreover, they are possible because they are based on the enormous increase in investment that has taken place in those years. Fixed investment as a proportion of the national product has risen from 14½ per cent, to 18½ per cent., and productive investment, on which all this rests, is up during our term of office by no less than 75 per cent.
    This, again, is what my right hon. Friend was referring to. This is the foundation of productive investment and achievement already recorded on which our future programme is solidly and with confidence based-
    Mr. William Ross: No wonder the right hon. Gentleman lost at Blackpool.
    Mr. Maudling: We accepted in the Budget the N.E.D.C. target of a 4 per cent, growth rate. As I have said, all our calculations of social expenditure are reckoned on acceptance of that growth rate, because they ought to be. Having accepted that postulate, that objective, we base our programme on it. That is quite right, because all the parties in the N.E.D.C.—Government, employers, the trade unions and the rest—accept that a 4 per cent, growth rate is achievable, and much more nearly achievable than the party opposite gives us credit for—
    Mr. James Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman is basing it on promises and hopes for the future. Is he now to tell us what changes in policies we can expect from a Government whose average rate of growth over the last twelve years has not been 4 per cent., or even 3 per cent., but 2½ per cent.? On this basis, are not these just confetti promises for the future?
    Mr. Maudling: I intend to give figures to disprove that point. I know that figures are inconvenient, but in our case they are the basis of policy.
    The 4 per cent, growth rate needs a 3.2 per cent, yearly increase in productivity. These are all the N.E.D.C.'s own calculations, and in its Report the hon. Gentleman will find it saying that whereas before the war 1½ per cent, was the annual figure, productivity rose between 1951 and 1961 by 2 per cent, and between 1955 and 1961 by 2½ per cent. The N.E.D.C. now says that

    205
    probably it is rising by nearly 3 per cent. The gap between nearly 3 per cent, and 3.2 per cent, is not all that wide, and the steady increase in the rate of growth of productivity over these years given by these figures is a final answer to the charges of stagnation that we so often hear.
    It is quite possible to achieve a 4 per cent, growth rate, and the House will remember that I based my Budget proposals very largely and systematically on the proposals of the N.E.D.C. and its recommendations for sweeping away—[Interruption.] No—the N.E.D.C. did not recommend that. The right hon. Gentleman recommended it, and gave it up. The right hon. Gentleman makes a very agreeable grave digger to the ambitions of his friends.
    The Gracious Speech carries further the proposals I made in the Budget, particularly in regard to industrial training, local employment and regional development. Industrial training will be dealt with by a Bill shortly to be put before us, so I cannot speak about it in any detail now, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and President of the Board of Trade will speak on regional development tomorrow. In the meantime, I want to stress again how much has already been achieved in this field.
    Under the Local Employment Act, projects have been brought forward involving some 90,000 jobs. If it had not been for the Local Employment Act there would have been no B.M.C. at Bathgate, no Ford's at Mersey side, none of the great development at Linwood—all these projects came into being because of our policies-
    Mr. William Hamiltonrose—
    Hon. Members: Give way.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. The House knows the rule quite well. It is that if the right hon. Gentleman is in possession of the House and does not give way, other hon. Members must resume their seats.
    Mr. W. Hamiltonrose—
    Hon. Members: Sit down.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order.
    Mr. W. Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer chooses to make accusations, and deliberately deceive the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—he should give way to an hon. Member to correct him.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That point is not properly raised as a point of order for the Chair.
    Mr. Maudling: I was about to say—
    Mr. W. Hamiltonrose—
    Hon. Members: Give way.
    Mr. Maudling: I was about to say that I would give way-
    Mr. W. Hamiltonrose—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I do hope that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) will abide by the rules of the House.
    Mr. Maudling: I was about to say that I would give way when I finished this section—and if the party opposite had made a little less noise I would have been able to say it much earlier. In addition to the measures under the Local Employment Act there was the free depreciation in the Budget, the surplus aid provisions, to which I have already referred, the grants to local authorities for improving derelict sites, the new standard grants already announced in the Budget, of 25 per cent, and 10 per cent., and the £75 million shipbuilding scheme since. This is the complete picture which I want to put before the House, and now I will certainly give way.
    Mr. W. Hamilton: Has the right hon. Gentleman studied the unanimous Report of the Estimates Committee where it indicated that the Local Employment Act had been virtually valueless concerning Scotland, that we have, in fact, lost almost as many jobs as we have gained, and that some of the motor corporations went there before the Act was on the Statute Book?
    Mr. Maudling: If the hon. Member thinks that the Act has been valueless, the workers of Linwood and Bathgate would not think so.
    Mr. Walter Monslow: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question which I raised with the Prime Minister yesterday. I am in a constituency which has had development status for approximately six months and, incidentally, the situation has deteriorated so far as employment is concerned. We have this anomalous situation.
    Lieut-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it not wrong for the hon. Gentleman to get up under the guise of asking a question and then make a speech?
    Mr. Monslow: I completely ignore that interjection. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am putting this point in no other way than for information. We have in my constituency a situation of 10 per cent. redundancy whilst in the South we are 14 per cent, understaffed. I am asking, inasmuch as attention is being given to other parts of the country—I make no complaint—are areas such as mine, where there is 10 per cent, redundancy, to get a balanced economy? Are they to receive attention, which has not yet been given, in due course under the scheme?
    Mr. Maudling: My right hon. Friend will be dealing in detail with this tomorrow. My point was that the general benefits available under the Budget to the development districts are producing substantial results. I could quote a number of instances. In fact, many hundreds of new projects have come forward in the districts, as as whole, with the largest numbers in the North-East and Scotland, since the Budget proposals were put forward. My point is that what has already been done, in housing, education and everything else, is a substantial basis on which we shall make further progress. I do not think that the jobs created in Scotland were nonsense, whatever the hon. Gentleman may think.
    Mr. Ross: I will quote what the right hon. Gentleman said when the Local Employment Act was going through, because he conducted that Measure. He said that it would lead to success, at that time, when in the development areas in Scotland there were 60,000 unemployed.
    208
    Three years later, after the "successful" Act, there were 92,000 unemployed.
    Mr. Maudling: If tens of thousands of new jobs in Scotland are not a form of success, I do not know what is. I have been dealing with the broad basis for a 4 per cent, growth programme. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why"?] Because it is the basis of our future plans, because it is accepted by N.E.D.C, including the trade union representatives, because I think that it is acceptable to the party opposite, because it is the only coherent basis upon which to operate, and because we prefer on this side of the House to have a coherent basis upon which to operate.
    I want to refer to the other obstacle which has held back our expansion in the past. That is what is called the stop-go, start-stop, whichever way you like to put it—the fluctuations in activity which have arisen from two main causes. First, the exposed position of sterling as one of the great reserve currencies of the world, responding to the fluctuations of international monetary movements; and I think that it will be agreed that whatever Government is in power the strength of sterling and all that depends on it must take prority over all other considerations. I am sure that that will be agreed by the party opposite. It was said by the Leader of the Opposition.
    Secondly, what has held us back has been the tendency for incomes to rise too fast in times when productivity has itself been rising. Time and again, we have overpassed ourselves by going too fast. We must not do that again. I think that the position is a good deal stronger than it has been. Certainly the resources available to support sterling—the International Monetary Fund in its new and improved form, the bilateral arrangements that we have, the Basle arrangements, the 500 million dollar swap arrangement with the United States—in all these ways resources available to support sterling against temporary fluctuations or temporary difficulties are much stronger than they were. And I believe that we are strongly placed to meet any speculative movement, at a time of vigorous expansion in this country, so long as our domestic economy remains sound.
    For our domestic economy to remain sound I come back once again to what

    209
    seems to me to be the one fundamental necessity—a rational incomes policy designed to ensure that real incomes in all forms rise as rapidly as the economy can bear, but are not pushed up in money terms so fast as to lead to a return of inflation, rising costs and rising prices. We have seen recently in the remarkable development of our export trade in Europe how important it is to keep incomes at a level to keep inflation under control. If we are to maintain the exports that we need we cannot rely on France, Italy and other countries running into inflationary difficulty. We must continue ourselves to exercise the restraint we need in this country, and I am glad to see that the party opposite have at their most recent conference been converted at last to this point of view.
    I believe that we have reason to look forward to the future with confidence. I said in the Budget that our objective should be expansion without inflation, expansion that can be sustained. Since then we have seen a broad based expansion, starting with construction and motor cars and spreading down the whole range of British industry from the retail trade to the heavy steel industry. We have seen production in industry rising strongly, we have seen exports going up well, particularly to Europe, we have seen the rising confidence of business men and increasingly good reports from major companies. This has been accompanied by a remarkably stable level of prices and the very strong position of sterling in a difficult time of the year. In other words, the Budget objectives are being achieved and will go on being achieved so long as we continue, as we intend to do, with the policies to which we are committed. On the basis of those policies, and on the basis of what has already been achieved, as I have demonstrated today, we have calculated that we can well sustain this programme which will be of such immense benefit to the whole people.
    5.8 p.m.
    Dr. Horace King: As I am sure that the House would wish that I should leave the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), I do not propose to deal
    210
    with it. I would say at the outset that I thought that the unfortunate speech of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) yesterday was nevertheless singularly appropriate to a party which is attempting to substitute the image of John Wilkes for that of Dr. Johnson. The Prime Minister could well say to his back-benchers: "It is all very well to dissemble your love, but why did you kick me downstairs?" It is indeed a historic occasion when in thanking the Prime Minister in a debate on the Address Caligula's horse is brought in, as it was yesterday.
    Speaking personally for a moment I am sorry that the ex-Prime Minister, whose brilliant leadership of his party nobody questions, should have had the last months of his ten years of high office clouded by misfortunes for which he was not responsible and that he should have had to end his career through illness. I need hardly say that everybody here is glad that the former Prime Minister is well on the way back to health and strength. The battle we have in the House is not between persons, even Prime Ministers, but between parties.
    The Tory Party, having tried every change of Minister possible, is now trying the desperate expedient of changing its policy. As for those parts of the Gracious Speech which are favourable, I would ask why if the programme is all right the Government have not carried it out during the last twelve years. The simple fact is that everything that the Robbins Committee tells the country about the failure to provide university places for the first infant bulge, for the children who will be disappointed in our sixth forms this year, we on this side of the House have been telling the Government for the last eight or nine years.
    A Government who are now accepting the Robbins Report, just as a drowning man clutches at a straw, only eighteen months ago were refusing the University Grants Committee the finances requested for a much smaller programme. I can remember telling the House that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer was asking the University Grants Committee to make bricks without straw. The New-som Report on secondary education, on what we are doing for the average child, some of us asked for several years ago.

    211
    It reveals gaps and deficiencies in school building, teacher supply, equipment and amenities about which we have been protesting from this side of the House throughout the long life of Conservative Governments. The Report reiterates the demand made by the Crowther Report that we should name a date after which all children in Britain should receive education up to the age of 16, but there is not a word about that in the Gracious Speech. I hope that some day we shall debate fully the Newsom Report, which I regard as even more important than the Robbins Report. One point which I should like to make at this stage is that the emphasis in the Newsom Report on the spiritual and the ethical as distinct from the intellectual part of the education of all our children is admirable and something which the House will, I hope, consider very seriously.
    But the whole of the Newsom Report, just like the Robbins Report, is a condemnation of the Government's twelve years' stop-and-go policy in education. If the Government are now proposing to ride on the bandwagon of educational advance, we have the right to ask what has prevented them from taking the lead during the long run of Tory Prime Ministers and Ministers of Education.
    It will not be unknown to the House that the old Carthaginians used to crucify defeated generals. The modem Tory Party is not much better. It will do anything to hang on to power. The Tories got rid of a Minister of Education, the then Dame Florence Horsbrugh, to make room for Lord Eccles who was later thrown to the wolves just as callously as was his predecessor. The House is littered with ex-Ministers of Defence and ex-Prime Ministers, and ex-Parliamentary Secretaries are two a penny. Indeed, the Government benches are almost like the old pre-war French Parliament when nearly everybody was an ex-Minister.
    And now the last ex-Prime Minister is dropped unceremoniously and, it appears, almost as cheerfully as he himself sacrificed Minister after Minister to regain the confidence of the country in the Tory Party. As for another place, it has now become quite patently, as underneath we always knew it to be, an
    212
    instrument of Tory policy to be manipulated with lords in, lords out, commoners up and lords down by a party which, unlike the Labour Party, had always professed a veneration for blue blood and the Second Chamber.
    Now that the Labour Party has made it possible for them to do so, the lords will cheerfully throw away everything except their huge estates and wealth to preserve Britain from another Socialist Government. There has been nothing like it since that golden moment in the French Revolution when princes threw away their titles and the Duke of Orleans became overnight Philippe Egalite. Just as his predecessor hoped to blame those whom he dismissed for the faults of the whole Cabinet, so the new Prime Minister talks about a new drive, with most of the old horses, and a new policy of expansion here and vigour there and, above all, modernisation, clearly by implication putting all the blame for the lack of these things so far on the one important man not now in the Government—the former Prime Minister.
    I pay tribute to the skill and ruthless-ness of our ruling class. As the Prime Minister said at the Lord Mayor's banquet on Monday:
    "There is a direct relationship between wealth and power and influence."
    It is a relationship which we on these benches seek to destroy.
    I went about America during the time of the recent Tory leadership crisis as a good non-party Englishman speaking for my country. I said that the Tory conference was becoming almost democratic, indeed almost like an American convention at moments, and I hazarded a guess as to which Member of Parliament would be chosen leader. I had to give up trying to explain when the Establishment decided that nobody on the Government benches in this House was fit to be Prime Minister.
    I should like to turn now from what is the controversial part of my speech to something else. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am sorry that the Government benches do not like the truth.
    Sir Cyril Osborne: Let the hon. Member talk about something he understands.
    Dr. King: Each year I visit the universities of the United States and talk to about 10,000 young people in colleges and high schools in Georgia. In that country, as everyone who has been there will agree, one receives a welcome whose generous nature and lavish scale is indescribable. This time in the deep South I found a warm affection for Britain and a desire to understand British politics and Britain's relations with Europe. We had deep and searching discussions on the implications of the Test Ban Treaty, a treaty which was voted by a large majority in Congress but where there was still a minority who did not want to move a scrap towards reaching an understanding with Khrushchev.
    I felt this year that the Cuba crisis, during which I was in America last year, had brought American people, as I believe it brought the Russians, to face the grim reality, as never before, that a third world war is so horrible as to be unthinkable and that both sides must reach out to take advantage of the easement of tension in East-West relations.
    I believe that there are forces in America and forces in the Communist world who regard compromise and the will for peace as "appeasement" and treachery. There are those who say, "Let us get tough with Khrushchev", just as there are those who say to Khrushchev," Let us get tough with Kennedy." To me the most significant remark of this year has been the Khrushchev quotation from Mao Tse-tung's talk with Nehru, when Mao said that a third world war might mean the death of 900 million people but there would still be 2,000 million left. This is an attitude, whoever holds it, which is abhorred by statesmen on both sides of the Iron Curtain.
    The new Foreign Secretary has the good wishes of every hon. Member in all that he and his Department try to do, with Kennedy and Khrushchev, on the recent easement of tension, on the bridges that they try to build between East and West. But that bridge building cannot be on one side only. To me Russia's fear of a nuclear-armed Germany makes sense. It is time that the West openly declared that the Oder-Neisser line, which cannot be changed without a war, is a boundary which the
    214
    free world recognises as unchangeable except by free negotiation. Moreover, the long-term task of the free world and of Russia together must be to use their influence to win the great Continent of China to world peace.
    Georgia is a State which I have known very well over a long period of years. The trouble about the nations is that they know only the worst of each other. Here I would pay tribute, from personal knowledge, to our own foreign service in America, to the British Information Service, to men like Mr. Alec Robertson in the deep South, recently decorated by Her Majesty for sterling services to the cause of British-American understanding.
    I was pained that the first question to me at each of my seventy meetings was about Profumo, just as I am pained to think that to many Britons America is the place where four negro children were murdered. Democracy seems to be searching for its lowest common denominator. We need to get to know what is worth while about each other. We have got to improve our public relations, even between the free parts of the world, let alone between the free, the uncommitted and the Communist parts of the world.
    I was happy to see in Georgia an advance towards integration, to meet the first coloured Americans in the universities where 1 lectured, and to find the Christian churches at long last debating what they would do when the first black Christian asked for admittance to a white Christian church. The way ahead in the South is not easy. There are deep complications on the issues of State rights and federal powers, but the southern States are moving steadily forward with the exception of Alabama and Mississippi.
    If the climate is peaceful in Georgia, it is largely because nearly fifty years ago, and for the last fifty years—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Member, but this debate is concerned with British affairs and I hope the hon. Member will bear that in mind.
    Dr. King: I am sorry if I dilated, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was going to say that if the situation in the South has improved it is largely because of the

    215
    sterling work of a great American editor, Mr. Ralph McGill, one of the great journalists of the world, who has fearlessly denounced racialism and social injustice in the South. I believe that encouraging people of all kinds to meet each other—journalists and the rest-is a great contribution to world peace. Anything that the present Government can do in their last moments before the General Election to step up the exchange of teachers, professors and journalists is a contribution to world understanding and peace. I would hope that the Government—or the Press—would one day invite Mr. Ralph McGill to Britain. This could indeed help British-American understanding.
    Mr. W. Yates: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I should like your guidance on the Ruling that you gave a moment ago. When an hon. Member desires to discuss any matter connected with his visits abroad, his constituency, his attendance on Committees either in this country or abroad, or anything else that he may wish to raise in this debate on the Gracious Speech, is that now out of order?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Anything that is concerned with British policy and with British foreign policy is in order, but not the internal affairs of a foreign State.
    Dr. King: I accept your rebuke, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I admit that I wandered, carried away by my belief in the importance of British-American understanding and the need to bring together and to exchange wherever possible people of all ranks in furtherance of that understanding.
    If I may say a word about Europe, it is only this. Whatever the difference of opinion in the House about the Common Market—and there are obvious differences—I am sure that it is common policy between both sides of the House that there are bonds between ourselves and Europe which we hope the Government will continue to strengthen. The mere fact that de Gaulle at the moment seems to want to cut off his nose to spite his face should not interfere with the long-established Franco-British friendship and our oneness with Europe; and in trade, defence and certainly in the realm of education culture I express the
    216
    hope that the Government will continue with the efforts which the former Lord Privy Seal made towards bridging the gap between ourselves and Europe.
    On the question of culture I speak as a former Vice-Chairman of the Cultural Committee of the Council of Europe and a member of the British section of the European Cultural Foundation. Tremendously fine work has been done in the twinning of cities, in the breaking of the language barriers, in the exchange of young people, in the approach which is being made to the teaching of European rather than mere national history. I plead with the Government, in quest-of European unity, whenever they have the opportunity, deliberately to foster and encourage the work in the field of European culture.
    Coming to the home front, I believe that the most important question facing this country is now, as always, the poverty of the poor. Like every other hon. Member, I have been asked to urge this Government to do something for the old-age pensioner. I hope that even if it is just part of a pre-election programme, the new Prime Minister will increase the old-age pension and the basic allowance which we pay to the old, the sick, and unemployed, and will have another look at the vexed problem of widowhood which some of us have been raising year after year, which we still treat inadequately and anomalously, and that they will do this before the winter begins.
    The real lessons of the Christine Keeler business are twofold. First, there are in this country people who have so much money and leisure that they do not know what to do with either. The other is that those with the biggest incomes often do the least work for the country. I regret that here is nothing in the Queen's Speech which calls for an alliance of those who work in this country against those who do not work—against, for example, those who are merely what Hamlet described as
    "spacious in the possession of dirt"
    and who, because Britain needs hospitals, houses, schools and factories, are today reaping vast unearned incomes at the expense of the ratepayers and taxpayers. I believe that such an alliance of all who work is beginning to be

    217
    forged, and that when the General Election comes it will sweep out the party which has made land and property speculation far more rewarding than any honest work by hand and brain.
    I regret that there is not a word in the Queen's Speech about the land, rent, and property rackets. This week I believe the Government have set out to try to pull off the greatest confidence trick of the century, to steal the Whig's clothes while they are bathing, and to blame somebody else for what is wrong with Britain. The Government underestimate the intelligence of the British electorate. They cannot fool an educated democracy for ever, and I only hope that at the earliest possible moment they will give this country an opportunity of making a fair judgment on the fundamental difference between the two parties.
    5.28 p.m.
    Sir Lionel Heald: One part of the Gracious Speech which has so far received no attention at all is that which deals with the administration and the machinery of the law. It is quite natural in a debate where great national issues on peace and prosperity are at stake that this should be so, but the fairness and efficiency of our legal system and our law are matters of great public interest, and it is desirable that we in this House should show that we are interested in them.
    We may also hope that those matters will receive some mention or attention in the Press and on the air, so that the general public may be given something to counteract suggestions, so often made, that we in this "House, irrespective of party, are not really concerned with matters of public interest.
    There are two legal subjects in the Gracious Speech of particular interest dealing with real grievances. The first is compensation for injuries caused by violence as a result of crimes, and the second is the question of legal aid costs. As regards the first, there is wide support, I am quite sure, for the principle of such compensation, but there is a great deal of difference of opinion and many difficulties concerning the application of that principle.
    From the Gracious Speech it is not clear what attitude is being adopted to-
    218
    wards it because, if I may be allowed to quote the words, the Gracious Speech says:
    "You will be invited to consider arrangements for the payment of compensation to the victims of crimes of violence."
    That does not suggest legislation, and it is consistent, as a matter of language, with our merely being told what is going to be done. But I hope that that is not all it means, because there are a number of very difficult problems involved—not party questions of any kind—in this. It is something which we all want to deal with and I cannot waste the time of the House on it now. But let us think for a moment or two about one or two questions. Is it the court which is to decide, the court which hears the case, or who is to decide? What is to be the basis of compensation in any given case? How does one define an innocent person—if we limit it to innocent people? Is there to be a general fund out of which the money comes?
    There is a suggestion in one of the newspapers today that there is to be an ex-gratia payment. Some of us have had some experience of past Government ex-gratia payments, and the point is, I think, best illustrated by what happens when one does or does not have an independent tribunal to assess the ex-gratia payment. When one has an ex-gratia tribunal, as we know from matters arising out of the war, there is a very fair award, but when we have somebody who is not an independent tribunal I do not think that we can feel happy about it. Those are all difficult problems, and I venture to ask the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who I am very glad to see here today, if we may in due course have a clear explanation and a full opportunity of debating this matter if the public is going to be satisfied that the system is intended to be, and will be, not only fair but comprehensive and practical.
    With regard to legal aid there is unanimous agreement that the present system is unfair. If a plaintiff is legally assisted and the defendant is not, and the plaintiff's case fails, the defendant has no redress at all as regards costs. Many of us know hard cases which have resulted from that. One wonders really why it is that we have not been able to get it more generally accepted that

    219
    this should be done. One supposes that the present proposal must be a victory over the Treasury, because no one else has ever argued against it.
    Our main need in this case, I suggest, is speed. There is no real dispute about the matter and I do not see any difficulty about the Bill becoming an Act. It is true that it ran into some technical hitches in another place during the last Session, but there must be no question of sidetracking it here. It ought to be brought in and become law very quickly. I am sure that it will receive every assistance here.
    The next matter is the reorganisation of the criminal courts in London, principally dealing with the amalgamation of the present London magistrates' courts and the petty sessional courts. Again there is no difficulty about the principle. The Aarvold recommendations have been generally accepted. Again, the main requirement is speed, so that the new system can be put into operation as quickly as possible.
    Then there is a proposal which requires rather more consideration. It is the proposed right of the Court of Criminal Appeal to order a new trial. Such a power is, of course, a usual feature of appeal courts, for use in very special cases and not otherwise. The fairest example is one where new evidence becomes available of which no one could have known before and which transforms the whole case, between the first court and the court of appeal. So it is right that such a right of appeal should exist. But I think it would be generally agreed that it must not be used, as some enthusiasts in the past have suggested it might be used, for the purpose of "having another go "—they put it that way—at a man who is thought to have been lucky to get away with it, although he has had a perfectly fair trial with both sides being heard. That is the principle of nemo debet bis vexari. I do not feel that I need translate that. I think that the terms of the Bill should make that clear for all to read, and avoid any possibility of any efforts being made to get round it.
    With regard to legislation and the legal field generally, it has been suggested in certain quarters that fundamental changes in our whole system of
    220
    law and its administration are necessary and in need of that requirement. I am told—I have not seen it myself—that the Gracious Speech has already been criticised for not including drastic proposals of that nature. I personally do not agree with that view at all, and I do not believe that it has the support of any great weight of opinion. Above all, I think it most important, especially when such things are said, that no countenance should be given to any suggestion or suspicion that our present standards of justice are in any way inferior to those of the past.
    Certain things have been said in this connection and other things have been hinted which could have the effect, unless they are contradicted and kept in place, of shaking public confidence. In particular, remarks have been made, sometimes of a decidedly ambiguous nature, which have been understood, whether rightly or wrongly, as directly reflecting on the impartiality or independence of the judiciary. It has certainly been specifically alleged that the Government have sought to interfere with the independence of the judges, and some of the statements have undoubtedly been interpreted as going much further and implying that the judges have allowed themselves to be influenced by political considerations.
    I do not wish to suggest that anyone has actually said that. I know of no such statements being made, but I have read statements which suggest that the Government have "debauched public life" and have allowed the administration of the law to come into suspicion and contempt. Matters of that kind have been alleged. I myself have had, and I know some of my hon. Friends have had, serious queries from constituents as to whether there is any truth in that kind of allegation. I believe, therefore, that any such allegations, implications or insinuations, whatever one calls them, ought to be repudiated and condemned whenever they occur. I know of no single case, since long before I came into this House and since I have been connected with public affairs in any way, where it could ever be properly suggested that any judge has been influenced by political considerations or has been subservient to any political party at any time. It is not

    221
    a justifiable suggestion, and it can only do immense damage to us all over the world. If ever the alleged behaviour of the judiciary became a counter in the party political game, it would be a very bad day for this country, and I hope that it never will be so.
    In the same connection, I believe that there will be universal satisfaction in the House that certain accusations of alleged unprofessional conduct, made against my right hon. and learned Friend Her Majesty's Attorney-General, have been held by the appropriate professional tribunal to be unfounded. I do not intend to say more about it, not because nothing could be said but because I firmly believe that, where a professional tribunal of the highest standing and with ancient history such as the Bench of the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple has made such a finding, it is more fitting to let it speak for itself.
    I add only this. The Law Officers of the Crown perform an essential function in this House. Although they are members of the Executive, their first and overriding duty is to us, to the House of Commons, to advise impartially on any legal question which may arise, however inconvenient the answer may be for the Government. Those of us who have had the great honour to serve in that office know that there are occasions when it is necessary to make a decision of that kind and do what one believes to be right. The reason one does it is that one is still a member of the Bar, subject to all the traditions and rules of professional conduct, the unwritten rules which are so ancient and so firm and which are still binding although one might think it more convenient to give a decision favourable to the Government. Therefore, it is of the highest importance that no shadow of doubt should ever fall upon the integrity of one of the Law Officers.
    Several Hon. Membersrose —
    Mr. R. T. Paget: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. To clear my mind, has the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey finished his speech?
    Sir L. Heald: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Dingle Foot.
    Mr. Paget: I was hoping, before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sat down—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid that the hon. and learned Gentleman was too late.
    5.43 p.m.
    Mr. Dingle Foot: On this occasion, I find myself very much in agreement with the opening observations of the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) and, indeed, with the greater part of what he had to say. He began by emphasising that the fairness and efficiency of the administration of justice is a matter of first concern to this House. I agree that this should be well understood outside. The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to refer to the particular law reforms which are foreshadowed in the Gracious Speech. All I say about that is that I join with him in welcoming the proposal
    "to alleviate hardship resulting from litigation between persons who receive legal aid and those who do not"
    I entirely agree that this is a matter of considerable urgency.
    The proposal
    "to empower the Court of Criminal Appeal to order a new trial of a convicted person on grounds of fresh evidence"
    raises a very controversial topic. Speaking for myself, I think that the power to order a new trial should be confined to those cases in which fresh evidence is available and ought not to be extended to cases in which a conviction is quashed because of some misdirection or irregularity in the trial.
    The proposals set out in the Gracious Speech are all very well in their way, but I submit that, in present circumstances, they are quite inadequate. In this Session we ought to devote a good deal of time to reforming the administration of justice and considering the relationship between the police and the public.
    In this country we rightly take great pride in the way justice is administered. We have two great assets. The first consists in absolutely independent judges who are, for the most part, of a very high calibre. I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey in repudiating any suggestion

    223
    that the judges are, or have been, susceptible to any kind of improper pressure from the Executive or from anyone else. Our second asset is something which I believe to be essential in any really free society, namely, a strongly organised legal profession. But, having accepted that, let us not assume, as the Solicitor-General appeared to do in a speech last week, that our system of administering justice does not need to be radically reformed and improved.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): The hon. and learned Gentleman may have been misled by a totally false report which appeared in, I think, two newspapers. If it is that which he has in mind, I hope he will accept that what I said at Harrogate, which I repeated at Cambridge, was correctly reported at Harrogate—it will shortly be published—and that both the newspapers which received a distorted report, not from a professional journalist, did, in fact, carry my correction a few days later.
    Mr. Foot: I am delighted to hear that disclaimer. Perhaps this occasion has served a useful purpose in that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made it in the House.
    One of the least admirable features of political life in this country is the delay experienced in bringing about even the most obvious and necessary legal reforms. I remind the House of two or three examples. In the 1890s, there was passed through Parliament one of the most iniquitous Statutes ever to find its way to the Statute Book, an Act called the Public Authorities Protection Act. That Act put public authorities in a position far more favourable than that of private defendants. Whereas one could sue a private defendant in tort within six years after a cause of action, a public authority had to be sued within six months. This led to a great deal of injustice in a number of cases. There were many instances in which litigants did not discover their rights or who the proper defendant was within six months, and they were out of time. It took over 60 years to put that right. It was not until the early 1950s that we changed the law and did what was obvious and necessary, putting public
    224
    authorities in the same position as any private defendant.
    For many years, it was impossible in this country to sue the Crown in tort. There was an almost unanimous demand from the legal profession that we should have the Crown Proceedings Act. I remember the question being raised again and again in the years before the war, but not until the 1940s was the Act passed.
    Again, those of us who deal with accident cases and claims for damages by injured workmen remember very well the defence of common employment. It was a doctrine condemned by almost every practising lawyer and condemned also by every trade unionist who had knowledge of accident law and accident claims. Yet this fantastic part of the law remained in our system until the 1940s, for something like a century.
    In 1932, the Committee on Ministers' Powers, a very authoritative Committee, recommended what now seems obvious, that when a public inqury was held by an inspector who reported to the Minister, an inquiry affecting the rights of various people, the report of the person making the inquiry should be published and the Minister should give reasons for his decision. That seems obvious today, but it was not until 1957 that we managed to get it on the Statute Book and after we had had another inquiry
    In each of those instances—and it would be very easy to multiply them—the case for reform was obvious and, I submit, overwhelming, yet in each instance the reform could not be accomplished until after many years' delay. That was not due, as some people seem to think, to the inherent conservatism either of the judiciary or the legal profession, because suggestions for reform of the law frequently come from the judges themselves who dislike having to administer an injustice or from those concerned in one way or another with the administration of the law. The fault lies not with the courts but with Parliament and the administrative machine.
    May I take one particular example which is, I think, of great importance. About seven or eight years ago, following the Bodkin Adams trial, the Tucker Committee was set up to examine how far committal proceedings should be held

    225
    in camera and whether they should be reported. After a very full inqury the Committee unanimously recommended that evidence given in committal proceedings before the magistrates should not be published in the Press until all the proceedings were over or until the accused was discharged.
    That was a most important recommendation. I suggest that its importance has been underlined by recent proceedings in our courts. I have in mind in particular the trial of Dr. Stephen Ward. How could any juror called upon to try that case have failed to form some impression in advance from the evidence given in the committal proceedings? The same observation applies to the forthcoming trial of Miss Christine Keeler.
    The mischief of reporting committal proceedings in the Press is twofold. First, as a general rule, the defence is reserved, which means that only the evidence, for the prosecution is published. Secondly, evidence may be admitted and reported in the Press which is not afterwards sought to be called or which is held to be inadmissible at the trial. Those were the recommendations of the Tucker Committee which reported in July, 1958. No action was taken by Her Majesty's Government.
    In January last year the Government introduced the Criminal Justice Administration Bill. It did not deal with this aspect of the administration of the law, but when it was in Committee upstairs my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney North, (Mr. Weitzman) sought to introduce an Amendment to give effect to the Tucker recommendation regarding the reporting of committal proceedings. The reply given by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), who was then the Home Office spokesman, was that this was a highly controversial topic but that the Government were setting up a fresh inquiry into the nature and purpose of committal proceedings. That announcement was nearly two years ago.
    We therefore have this position. It is seven years since the Tucker Committee was set up and we have waited nearly two years for this fresh inquiry into committal proceedings. Meantime,
    226
    this procedure which may and undoubtedly sometimes does work real injustice is allowed to continue without reform.
    I could easily cite other examples but I should like to refer to one or two. It was as long ago as 1923 that the Atkin Committee, which was considering the defence of insanity in criminal proceedings, recommended the abolition of the ridiculous verdict "Guilty but insane", which is for any lawyer simply a contradiction in terms. The same recommendation was made by another committee in the early 1950s. Only in September this year the same recommendation was made by the Criminal Law Revision Committee presided over by Lord Justice Sellers, which recommended a different verdict. It also recommended that there should be an appeal, which there is not at present, from the verdict of insanity. I hope that the Government will find time to deal with that recommendation, and with the other recommendation of the Sellers Committee, namely, that in a criminal trial the defence should always have the last word. That was a unanimous recommendation which is, I believe, supported by nearly everyone with experience of the criminal law.
    Anyone who has been engaged in a defence knows the difficulty which arises in the case of a witness, other than a witness of character, who may be of some value but who is not absolutely vital and comes to support the defence. One is faced with a choice. One can either call him and lose the last word so that the prosecution gets the right of reply which it would not otherwise have, or one clings to the advantage of the last word leaving oneself open to the criticism that that witness has not been called.
    I do not believe that the defence should be put in that kind of dilemma. It results in evidence which should be before the jury not being called. That is a simple reform which would not take very much Parliamentary time. It would, I believe, be acceptable on both sides of the House, and there is no reason why we should not deal with it in the present Session.
    Everyone concerned with the law can think of many other examples apart from those which I have given, but I

    227
    recommend to the House the proposals recently put forward in a book entitled "Law Reform Now." It is the work of a number of lawyers associated with the Labour Party and students of the law, including Mr. Gerald Gardiner and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones). As I was not one of the authors, I think that I can say that, in my opinion, it is a very considerable achievement.
    The authors make three proposals. First, that the Lord Chancellor's Department should be greatly strengthened; secondly, that there should be five law commissioners appointed for three years at a time in order to keep the question of law reform in all its branches under continuous review; and, thirdly, that there should be a vice-chancellor with the rank of Minister of State who would be exclusively concerned with law reform and would sit and answer questions in this House.
    I come to the second topic which I wish to mention, namely, the question of police powers and relationships between the police and the public. Let me make it clear that I am not making a general attack on the police in this country. I have had a great many contacts with the police and I, like, I suppose, every other hon. Member, have the highest regard for them as a body. I think that most of us agree that they are overworked and understaffed and, I would add, underpaid, and that in dealing with the modern criminal they have a more difficult task than ever before.
    However, that does not mean that we should refrain from criticism in cases where it is quite plainly called for. There is no need to make any comment on or to underline the findings of the Sheffield inquiry, which speak for themselves, but it is true, I think, that for a long time there has been great uneasiness in this country about the manner in which confessions are sometimes extracted and convictions obtained.
    I remind the House of one passage in the Report of the Royal Commission on the Police. It said, paragraph 369:
    "There was a body of evidence, too substantial to disregard, which in effect accused the police of stooping to the use of undesirable means of obtaining statements and of occasionally giving perjured evidence in a
    228
    court of law. Thus the Law Society suggested that the police sometimes use guile, and offer inducements, in order to obtain confessions, in the belief that irregular means of securing the conviction of a person whom they believe to be guilty are justifiable in the public interest, and that occasionally police officers colour, exaggerate, or even fabricate the evidence against an accused person.
    These criticisms applied, in their view, only to isolated cases."
    Nevertheless, the criticisms were made
    In this House, of course, we are concerned with the Metropolitan Police, for whose conduct the Home Secretary is answerable to us. I am bound to say that the answers which he gives to us are generally designed to furnish the minimum of information. Shortly before the House rose for the Summer Recess, I put to the Home Secretary a series of Questions. They had to be Written Questions because, under our procedure, Oral Questions to that Minister were no longer possible during the last fortnight of the Session. I was concerned about a particular incident, namely, the arrest and detention of Miss Marilyn Rice-Davies. I was not, as some of my lewder correspondents suggested, particularly interested in the lady herself, but was concerned with the fact that a citizen of this country against whom, we were told, no charge at any time was preferred should be prevented from leaving the country, detained in custody and then admitted to bail in the sum of £1,000. I suggest that the procedure adopted in her case was wholly irregular and, indeed, illegal. It is quite apparent that the police did what they did to ensure that she should be present as a witness at Dr. Ward's trial.
    On 12th July, I asked the Home Secretary
    "(1) how many persons have been prevented by the Metropolitan Police from leaving the country during the present year and in each of the last preceding 10 years;
    (2) if he will give particulars of persons who since the beginning of the present year have been prevented by the Metropolitan Police from leaving the country although not charged with any offence."
    The right hon. Gentleman replied:
    "This information is not available."—
    [OFFICIAL REPORT. 12th July, 1963; Vol. 680, c. 180.}
    On 15th July, I asked the right hon. Gentleman
    "how many persons who have not been charged with any offences have been admitted

    229
    to bail by officers of the Metropolitan Police pursuant to Section 38 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, during the present year and in each of the 10 preceding years."
    The right hon. Gentleman again replied:
    "This information is not available."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July, 1963; Vol, 681, c. 21.]
    I should, I suppose, be out of order if I were to say that both those replies were patently untrue. Therefore, I will avail myself of the precedent set many years ago in this House by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) and say that on each occasion the Home Secretary was guilty of a terminological inexactitude. Obviously, the information was available in each case. It might have been difficult and troublesome to collect, but it must have been there; and the only reason why it was not made available to this House was that the right hon. Gentleman did not choose to obtain it.
    I suggest that the time has come to review the whole question of police powers relating to inquiry and arrest. We all know perfectly well that persons are sometimes convicted on confessions which are not really voluntary. We know that people are sometimes detained for questioning although there is no legal authority for any process of that kind. We know that pressure is sometimes brought upon witnesses to give evidence for the prosecution and we know that, in practice, the judges' rules on many occasions are not strictly observed. I know, too, that the answer is that if the police meticulously observed the law and the spirit of the law in every case, the detection of crime would become far more difficult than it is now. That is the dilemma which the House and the country must face.
    A number of suggestions have been made. I do not agree with the suggestion put forward last weekend by Lord Shawcross that we should adopt some imitation of the inquisitorial procedure of Continental countries, but it would be worth while for us to consider how the problem of police interrogation and of confessions has been dealt with in other parts of the Commonwealth. Particularly I have in mind the experience of India for the last 100 years and in later years of Ceylon.
    The law in those countries is as folio ws. A police officer who is investi-
    230
    gating a crime is entitled and empowered to put questions and require answers from anyone from whom he thinks that he can obtain useful information. When those answers are obtained, however, they can be used only for purposes of detection and they cannot be given in evidence for the prosecution, although, if they are reduced to writing, the written statements may in certain cases be available to the defence.
    Next, no statement or confession made to a police officer or while a suspect is in police custody is admissible in evidence. There is, however, a different form of confession—that is, the magisterial confession. If an accused wants to confess to the offence with which he is charged, he is taken out of the police station or prison, wherever he may be, to the house or office of the magistrate. The police must not be present and they must not be anywhere near at hand. The magistrate must satisfy himself that it really is a voluntary statement. Even so, the statements are sometimes challenged. It is, however, obvious that in a very large number of cases this eliminates the feature that we have in so many criminal cases in this country, where a statement is challenged, rightly or wrongly, because, it is said, it has been extorted by the police or has been obtained by unlawful inducement.
    I am not saying that we should necessarily adopt that system, but I do suggest that it calls for close examination. In relation to the police, it is not enough simply to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission as envisaged in the Gracious Speech. We need a fresh inquiry so that the powers of the police in relation to the citizen may be far more clearly denned and understood than they are at present.
    There is one other matter which deserves the consideration of this House. Many of us feel that complaints against the police ought not to be dealt with simply by the police themselves. I have not the slightest doubt that the great majority of chief constables, when adjudicating upon a charge against a member of their force, exercise their judgment with meticulous fairness and impartiality. Nevertheless, it is wrong that the police or anyone else should be judges in their own cause.

    231
    That is why I hope that the Government will consider in the very near future adopting some such suggestion as that contained in Dr. Goodhart's Minority Report of the Royal Commission on the Police. He suggested that there should be a staff of lawyers attached to each police force and that when a complaint is made, the complainant should have the choice of choosing that the matter would be dealt with summarily by the chief constable, as at present, or that the matter should be referred to somebody in a position of greater detachment. I believe that we shall have to adopt some system of that kind, because only by so doing can we restore the confidence that ought to exist between the police and the public.
    6.10 p.m.
    Sir Cyril Osborne (Louth): I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) will forgive me as an ordinary layman if I do not try to follow him into the intricacies of the legal system. Sitting as I do occasionally just as an ordinary magistrate, I find it quite difficult enough to follow the proceedings in the lower court, and 1 would not dream of trying to express my opinion on the matters which have just been discussed between the hon. and learned Gentleman and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald).
    First of all, I think I should like, in his absence, to congratulate the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, on, from his point of view, his brilliant party speech this afternoon. From his point of view, I think he put it over better than anything I have heard since Nye Bevan those years ago, with vigour, force and good humour. If hon. Members opposite will forgive me for saying this, I could not help wondering, since he got such a wonderful ovation, far bigger than his leader got yesterday, if they had chosen the right leader.
    Mr. Iorwcrih Thomas: We chose our own.
    Sir C. Osborne: The proposals made in the Queen's Speech cause me one great fear. It is a fear I have expressed in this House the last 15 years, the fear
    232
    and dread of inflation, which I regard as one of the greatest curses of modern times, and I want to know if the heavy spending programme which is outlined will not cause inflation. The Queen's Speech promises to encourage "growth without inflation." Now I want to know how. I want to know what detailed proposals are to be made to control and stop the inflationary forces. I have been asking this of different Governments since 1945, and I have not had a really reassuring answer. The magnitude of the proposals makes me fear inflation more today than I have ever done before. It seems to me that inflation penalises the thrifty in order to pamper the thriftless, and I am against this. I think that to defeat inflation should be our priority No. 1, and I am asking my own leaders, as I asked hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite in the 1945–51 Parliaments, what are they going to do to cure inflation, which I believe is inherent in these proposals. I ask my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to carry my plea to his senior colleagues.
    I remember that in 1948 a 2½ per cent. Treasury stock was issued at 100. It was strongly recommended to ordinary investors and savers as a good, sound, safe investment. It was so recommended by the then Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer. A man who put £100 of his hard-earned savings into that stock would, if he wished to sell it today, get about 44 per cent, for it. Therefore, he would lose 56 per cent, nominal. But that is not the worst. Since 1948 the value of the £ has fallen from 20s. to 11s. 6d. Therefore, a man who put £100 into that stock in 1948 today would get back in real value £25. That is the measure of what he has lost since 1948. He has been swindled of 75 per cent, of his real savings.
    I think this is a crime, a social injustice, and it applies not only to the 2½ per cent. Daltons but to Post Office savings, Treasury savings, National Savings Certificates, and to every stock bearing fixed interest. Therefore I plead, I plead hard, as I have done before on so many occasions, that we be given some assurance that this great expansionist programme will not be financed out of inflation. I plead for honest money.

    233
    Secondly, I want to make this plea which goes along with it. 1 welcome the proposal for £100 million for a housing corporation to help people either to buy their homes or to improve the homes they already own. I make this plea again. Is it not possible that the people who buy their own homes should be able to do so at a cheaper rate of interest? During the war and immediately after the war we had an artificially low Bank rate of 2 per cent. I am not suggesting it is possible to maintain a 2 per cent. Bank rate, but I think that 5 per cent, or 4 per cent, is too high. I would be satisfied with 3 per cent. Over recent years, however, I think the moneylenders have had a very good run for their money, and think it is high time that the borrowers got a fairer share of the cake.
    If I am told that this would mean that foreign money would leave the country, all I would say in return is this, that hot money which comes to our country to earn high interest rates is not nearly so valuable to us as the encouragement given by low rates of interest to our own people to buy their own homes. I make a serious plea here for cheaper and honest money.
    Before coming to the speech of the right hon. Member for Belper, who I see is here now, I want to refer to something in yesterday's Daily Express, a newspaper I do not always agree with; sometimes X violently disagree with it. It said that Mr. George Ball, the United States Under-Secretary of State, has come to this country to induce us not to trade as much as we are doing with Russia and other Communist countries. If it is true, then it is a scandal.
    I can hardly believe that my American friends would be so unwise as to send one of their junior Ministers to try to stop us from trading, for the simple reason that the American economy is so home-based that they have only to sell roughly 3 per cent, of what they produce to pay for their imports, whereas in this country we have to sell 30 per cent, of what we produce to pay for our imports. Therefore, a restriction which falls equally on American and British exports hits us 10 times harder than it does the Americans. I beg my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, if he has anything to do with it, to resist any pressure at all from the Americans, if it does come,
    234
    though I hope it will not come, to prevent us from doing legitimate trade with any country in the world, because this country lives by trade, and if our exports are hampered, then unemployment is inevitable. I hope we shall tell this pretty straight to our American friends.
    But the real thing I want to say about the Queen's Speech is what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition failed to say. We all admire his wit, his cleverness. Sometimes we think he is over-clever. But since hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are so sure that next year they are going to carry the burden of government—which they may well do, though I will do my best to see that they do not—it is fair to ask this fundamental question which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition failed to mention in a whole hour's speech yesterday. I ask him, why did he not discuss the question and the need of an incomes policy? Never once did he mention it. Yet this, in our economic situation, is the most vital of all factors. He never said a word about it. Neither did the right hon. Member for Belper, though I excuse him: he was so brilliant today I would excuse him anything—except winning the next General Election.
    In recent months the Leader of the Opposition—I gave him notice that I would refer to this—has gone from conference to conference urging that when the Labour Party comes to power—if it comes to power—there will need to be wages restraint as part of an incomes policy. We ought to say of the right hon. Gentleman in his absence that it required great courage for him so to do, and I congratulate him on doing that. But why did he not mention it yesterday? There was not one word about it.
    The reason is that hon. Gentlemen opposite are so violently divided about it. [Laughter.] I will prove it; it is not a laughing matter. The very security of our economic situation depends on it.
    Mr. E. G. Willis: Why did not the Prime Minister mention it?
    Sir C. Osborne: I am doing it now.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Green): My righthon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer did it this afternoon.
    Sir C. Osborne: If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will tell right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite the reason why an incomes policy is so vital to us, no matter what party is in power.
    There are 52 million people living in this country. We import about half our foodstuffs and the whole of our raw materials, and to pay for those imports we have to sell roughly a third of all that we manufacture. Hon. Members opposite must appreciate that no party can make the foreigner buy British. He buys British if our goods are of the right quality and, more important today, the right price. Wages and salaries, direct and indirect, represent 60 per cent, of our total industrial costs on average. Therefore, if our wages and salaries go up more than our productivity, what those wages and salaries produce must cost more, and if our costs and prices rise too high, the danger is that we shall price ourselves out of the export markets, and the 5 million jobs which depend directly upon exports will be lost. Whatever the Government in power, they will be faced with this problem of massive unemployment.
    I repeat what I have said on many occasions, that to be socially just an incomes policy must include everybody. Speaking for myself, I am willing to support a statutory limitation on dividends; I am prepared to agree to stern rent control; I am prepared to agree to far sterner control of expense accounts and all other forms of private income, provided that within the package deal we also have equal restraint in wages and salaries. If we could do that, the British miracle—I should like to say "English miracle ", because I love the word "English", which we never use now—would arrive, and it cannot come without that.
    I ask the leaders of the Opposition what their position is on this. They have not said a word yet. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Liberal Party, in the singular, will be good enough to listen, though I realise that it is most unusual for a Liberal Member of Parliament to listen. I tell both Front Benches that
    236
    I am convinced that we should put before our people, both the wage earners and the salary earners, the idea that it would be better to halve prices than double wages, for then everybody would be better off. I know that nobody would be more grateful for lower prices than the housewives. Many of them do not receive the increase in wages when their husbands get it but have to face higher grocery bills every weekend.
    I should like to see a national policy on this and not a party issue. I should like both parties to say that the ideal would be for us to have lower prices and not more paper money. We should all be better off then. There would be no trouble. Our problems about finding work and selling our exports would disappear.
    I put to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite the position as I see it from the Labour Party point of view. At Scarborough on 8th July the Transport and General Workers Union held its conference. The Leader of the Opposition went to that very high citadel of opposition to any wage restraint and with very great courage said that it was evident that the next Labour Government would have to ask for restraint in wages. For saying that, I honour him. He was serving not only his own party and himself; he was serving the country.
    The Labour Correspondent of The Times said that the right hon. Gentleman led up to it so skilfully—we know how he can do that—and phrased it so carefully that his announcement was actually received with applause. The right hon. Gentleman had slipped a fast one in there, and they had not noticed it. The Times Labour Correspondent went on to say:
    "Mr. Wilson was given an ovation, though some delegates bit quickly through the layers of sugar to the bitter-tasting pill."
    I ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite whether they are offering us the sugar coating or the pill.
    This is what was said:
    "I don't want wage restraint, brother," said Mr. L. H. Smith, of the London region, looking accusingly up at Mr. Wilson on the platform."
    Where do right hon. Gentlemen opposite stand? Do they want wage restraint? Are they prepared to come out, as the Leader

    237
    of the Opposition did on that occasion, and advocate it in the national interest?
    Finally, The Times Labour Correspondent said:
    "Apart from this minor diversion, Mr. Wilson's Plying visit to Scarborough has been a profitable electioneering exercise."
    Yet hon. Gentlemen opposite have the impertinence to talk to us about "electioneering." I ask hon. Members opposite to face up to this, because this is the issue that faces them in their own country, and it is vital that the people of the country should know where they stand.
    Mr. W. Yates: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Sir C. Osborne: No, I will not. I want to state my own case, because this is of vital importance to us.
    At the Trades Union Congress in Brighton on 4th September the question was raised again. I have the greatest regard for many of the senior trade union leaders, who have a very difficult task to perform and do it in an extraordinarily good way. The Labour Correspondent of The Times wrote:
    "In spite of all the efforts at accommodation and compromise, the Trades Union Congress made a characteristic muddle of its wage policy decisions here today …"
    If we have that muddle on the opposite side of the House and they are going to claim to be the next Government, surely the nation is entitled to know where right hon. and hon. Members opposite stand on this issue.
    I have armed myself with ail the facts. According to a document that I have, Mr. E. J. Hill—I take that to be Sir Ted Hill—of the United Society of Boilermakers, moved Motion 58 which said:
    "This Congress declares its complete opposition to any form of wages restraint."
    Mr. Arthur Holt: Something else was said.
    Sir C. Osborne: It is not in that motion. I beg the hon. Member to listen. He may learn some day.
    That motion was carried at the Trades Union Congress meeting at Brighton on 3rd September, despite what the Leader of the Opposition had said a month ago to the Transport and General Workers' Union. The nation is entitled to know where hon. Members opposite stand.
    Mr. John Stonehouserose—
    Mr. Anthony Croslandrose—
    Sir C. Osborne: I will give way to the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland).
    Mr. Crosland: I am grateful to the hon. Member for showing such neighbourly courtesy. If he is so anxious to know about the policy of this party, would he be kind enough to read out the resolution which the party passed at the Scarborough conference?
    Sir C. Osborne: I have it here. I am coming to that. I am trying to show—I think I am entitled to do so—the terrible difficulties which hon. Members opposite face and which, if they ever sat on these benches, they would have to resolve.
    The Times account said that Mr. Hill carried the day. He had defeated the realists.
    "Mr. Hill's speech, couched in tones of rugged reasonableness, was summed up in his scorn at the idea …"
    Mr. Hill was having none of the common sense about incomes policy or wages restraint. But he was honest enough and blunt enough to say so. The nation is entitled to know where the Labour Party stands on this matter. Mr. Hill went on to say—hon. Gentlemen opposite should listen to this—that, as he saw it, it was,
    "handing the Tories a wage freeze on a silver plate'"
    Then Mr. Hill added this characteristic addition. Referring to the Tories, he said:
    "With this and a good spring Budget they would get back to power."
    He is a fine prophet, is he not? We shall.
    What did the other leaders have to say about this important issue? Mr. Frank Cousins, who had thrown the conference into confusion by supporting the conflicting resolution—I have done my homework on this—said:
    "… they did not want a repetition of the situation under the last Labour Government, when the T.U.C. accepted a restraint policy and the unions went their separate ways with claims."
    What is the Labour Party going to do? Are we to have the same repetition?

    239
    Mr. Greene, the railwaymen's secretary, was even more blunt. He said he
    "… could not accept Mr. Hill's explanation. If you believe in planning, he said, you should be in the plan."
    Can hon. Gentleman opposite honestly say that the whole of the trade union movement would be in the plan, as the Leader of the Opposition wants it to be, for an incomes policy?
    Finally, Mr. Harry Douglass, secretary of the steelworkers,
    "… roundly accused Mr. Hill of resisting wage restraint under the last Labour Government, and said that duplicity would destroy Labour's chances of getting back".
    Here are three or four different voices from responsible people who support the party opposite.
    Mr. A. V. Hilton: Tell us what was said at Blackpool.
    Sir C. Osborne: I am sorry that hon. Members opposite do not like this, but they are going to get it.
    At the Labour Party conference—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—The Times sums up the position in this extraordinary way. The same Labour Correspondent, a friend of the party opposite, said
    "Mr. Cousins and Mr. Hill joined Mr. Callaghan, the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, and practically everybody else at the Labour Party Conference today in supporting an incomes policy covering salaries, wages, dividends, profits, and social security benefits as part of a programme to promote sustained economic growth."
    Can any hon. Member opposite tell the electorate that they could undertake that the trade union world—including Mr, Hill and Mr. Cousins—would support this? If they cannot, then on this issue they will be getting votes by false pretences.
    This is how the situation was summed up.
    "A major achievement of today's debate was the presentation of a new phrase to take the place of wage restraint—' the planned growth of wages "—
    [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—just wait for it—
    "Mr. Cousins introduced this to the delegates, who obviously approved, and Mr. Callaghan gratefully accepted it."
    240
    Will anyone tell the House what it means? "Hear hear" say hon. Members opposite. Can the right hon. Gentleman opposite tell us what it means? He is a clever fellow. He does not know. Nobody knows.
    Mr. Stonehouserose—
    Sir C. Osborne: No, I cannot give way.
    Hon. Members: You asked a question.
    Mr. Stonehouse: It means that the Labour Party stands for real growth in standards, and the T.U.C. conference, to which the hon. Gentleman referred earlier, demonstrated that, like all wise people, the T.U.C. does not trust the Tories.
    Sir C. Osborne: What a stupid intervention.
    May I remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that the National Union of Railwaymen filed a claim for increased wages which would have cost the nation roughly £30 million, and this from an industry already losing £160 million.
    Mr. Hilton: What are the railway-men's wages now?
    Sir C. Osbome: I am not saying that railwaymen are well paid. They are a long way from that. But does that pattern fit in with "the planned growth of wages" of Mr. Cousins which the shadow Chancellor gratefully accepted? Where do hon. Gentlemen opposite stand? They do not know.
    Mr. John Hyndrose—
    Sir C. Osborne: No, I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman. He has only just come into the Chamber.
    The Times went on to say, and on this I want to finish as quickly as I can—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."]—.
    "By incomes policy they did not mean wage restraint, Mr. Callaghan assured the delegates"—
    That is double-talk. That is "Mr.Facing-both-Ways". Hon. Membersopposite know that this is commondeceit—
    Mr. J. Hynd: How can growth be restraint?
    Sir C. Osborne:—
    "though it was only in July that Mr. Wilson was talking about wage restraint to the delegate conference of the Transport and General Workers Union".
    Where do hon. Gentlemen opposite stand on this? Because it is on this issue that our ability to sell our exports in the world markets will be decided.
    May I remind hon. Members of what was said by a Socialist whom I honoured greatly? I wish to goodness that hon. Members opposite had followed his advice—
    Mr. Ross: What do the Tories think about that?
    Sir C. Osborne: On 27th September, 1949, in this House, the late Sir Safford Cripps said:
    "Any worker by hand or brain who goes slow, or is an absentee, or demands more money for no more output, is, in fact, doing his best to put up his own household bills, and to put somebody—quite possibly himself—out of a job".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th September, 1949: Vol. 468, c. 31-32.]
    That was an honest man speaking. That was not double-faced talk. And the country is entitled to know whether hon. Members opposite expect to be led by people who would follow the counsel of Sir Stafford Cripps or by those who indulge in the kind of double-talk we have had from the benches opposite.
    Again in this House, on 26th October, 1949, Sir Stafford Cripps said:
    "We can express our present situation, robbed of all its technical surroundings and explanations, in quite simple terms. Unless we can all quickly produce more and get our costs down"—
    and that is what I am pleading for—
    "we shall suffer a tragic fall in our standard of living accompanied by all the demoralising insecurity of widespread unemployment"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th October, 1949; Vol. 468, c. 1352-3.]
    This is what Sir Stafford Cripps said. I ask hon. Members opposite, will they face this vital problem in the same way in which he faced it so many years ago?
    6.40 p.m.
    Mr. John Stonehouse: It is very encouraging that the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) acknowledges the fact of a Labour victory at the General Election, because he spent almost the entire time of his speech in asking what the Opposition are to do with regard to certain important economic prob-
    242
    lems. It was significant that he did not address those questions to his own Front Bench, because he knows that the Administration led by the Prime Minister is merely a caretaker one; they will not be in for very long.
    We must have a General Election before very long, and then the Labour Party is going to take over. I congratulate the hon. Member on his realism in acknowledging that it will be the Labour Party that will take over responsibility. My only regret is that towards the end of his speech the hon. Member did his best to qualify as the third clown in the Tory Party, so undermining some of the more useful points he made at the beginning of his speech.
    We have seen unfolded in the last day or so the pre-election manifesto of the Conservative Party, but this is not likely to be even half enacted. In this manoeuvre in which the Conservative Party is using the Gracious Speech in order to present its election programme, we have the cynical disregard of what this place is really about. We wonder whether Messrs. Colman, Prentis and Varley have been consulted about this manoeuvre, because it is possible to detect the inspiration of the public relations expert rather than the statesmen behind the legislative programme Parliament is asked to consider.
    The truth is that the Conservative Party, whether led by the Prime Minister of today or by the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), is the same calculating machine. It is not a party of principle but a conspiracy to maintain political power. The present boom in the economy, generated by relaxing credit, and by the phenomenal increase in public spending on capital projects, is designed purely and simply to secure a Tory victory at the next General Election. It follows the pattern of previous pre-election booms. The snag from the Tories' point of view is that the public are now wise to the trick. It is the third time unlucky. Whatever disguise the Conservative Party may try to fit on to its tarnished visage, it can no longer fool the electorate.
    The party of hon. Members opposite is divided and discredited. We ask, where is the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)? Are we to hear from him, the

    243
    eminent ex-Minister of Health? Are we to hear from the editor of the Spectator, the ex-Leader of the House of Commons? Why have they refused to serve in this Government although apparently they were invited to do so? I hope that we shall have some statement about the intentions of these right hon. Gentlemen.
    The country is waiting for a General Election and the Labour Party is waiting to serve the country. Until a party has secured a mandate from the electorate, it cannot get on with the job either of revolutionising and modernising—a slogan which the Tories have stolen from us—the economy of Britain, nor of establishing proper relations with the Commonwealth and the rest of the world. Take, for instance, relations with Europe and the Commonwealth. The present Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and President of the Board of Trade acknowledged, when he was Lord Privy Seal, that we could not start again negotiations with the Common Market until the General Election came.
    It is obvious, also, that not only are our relations with Europe, with E.F.T.A. and the Commonwealth in doubt, but our relations with other countries in terms of trading relations and political relationship are bound to be in doubt until other Governments in the world know that they are dealing with a Government which has the confidence and support of the electorate here. We do not know whether the Conservative Party has fully repudiated the European Economic Community; we suspect that it has not.
    We suspect that the Bow Group is still in the minority of the Tory Party and that if the Conservatives won the next General Election they would be starting negotiations again to go into the Common Market. There was, however, a curious discrepancy between statements made by the Prime Minister in Kinross when he suggested that the terms on which we were negotiating were not agreed and what was said by the former Prime Minister. He acknowledged that terms had been fully accepted by the Six and it was only General de Gaulle's veto which prevented us going in. The country will
    244
    expect the Conservative Party to come clean on this question well before the General Election. Have they repudiated the Treaty of Rome or are they intending to start negotiations again on the basis of that Treaty if they should win the next election?
    In the Gracious Speech there is reference to the importance of industrial training. I welcome that reference. I hope it will also include retraining for workers of all ages made redundant as a result of new techniques and automation. This is a problem which will be increasingly important in my constituency where there are new techniques in the making of steel, in the nut and bolt industry, in the lock industry and most of the industries in the three towns which I have the honour to represent here. There is a nagging fear in the minds of many of the men in my constituency that if new processes are introduced into their factories and there is the possibility of achieving higher production with a smaller labour force that they may be putting themselves out of a job by adopting those new techniques.
    Some of the leaders of industry in my constituency have been doing their best to persuade shop stewards and the trade unions to accept the wisdom of introducing new techniques, but I do not believe that the problem can be left wholly to industrial executives and shop stewards. The Government must play some part in securing stability and providing safeguards, particularly to workers in industries which are likely to be affected by automation. Industrial training, I hope, will include retraining of men likely to be made redundant.
    I am also glad to see mention of severance payments in the Gracious Speech. Here again, I hope this matter will not be left merely to industries to be affected by new techniques which lead to redundancy among the men they employ and merely making the question one of a lump sum payment or few weeks pay to cover the number of years which men have worked for a particular firm. I hope there will be a more general provision by the State taking responsibility and enabling security to be given to men irrespective of the number of years they have spent with a particular firm. It would be unfair to discriminate against a man who has

    245
    changed his jobs over the years and who may have worked for only a few years with a firm which is then responsible for paying him redundancy or severance pay for the years he has worked for it. That is a reason why it is important that the State should take some responsibility in this matter.
    I regret very much that there is no reference in the Gracious Speech to problems affecting millions of consumers in this country. Whatever jobs we have, we are all consumers. There is no reference to the protection of consumers, particularly housewives who are finding it increasingly difficult to cope with the multitude of trade gimmicks with which they are faced today.
    I regret that there is nothing in the Queen's Speech to strengthen the Monopolies Commission and to give it some teeth. I regret that there is no reference to the abolition of resale price maintenance, which should go if we are to have genuine competition in the retail trade. I regret that there is no reference to the Government's attitude to the growing stamp trading gimmick, which I believe is distorting retail trade and bringing no benefit to traders or to consumers. The effect of stamp trading is to put up costs, and there must be a full inquiry into this. I do not suggest that at the moment all stamp trading should be abolished; it is not as simple as that, because there are some methods which individual firms could use which would be of benefit to the consumer particularly if the firms give stamps which could be redeemed for cash at the end of a period. There would be no harm in that. But it is very dangerous indeed when stamp trading firms go into the business with the most ludicrous offers, the most outrageous promises, which there is no guarantee that they will honour at the end of the day.
    The promises which are given to housewives to save particular coloured stamps border on the outrageous if not the dishonest. It is suggested that the housewife will get free gifts. This is ludicrously untrue, because the housewife must pay, as the trader must pay, for the stamps which she collects. Every trader giving out stamps has to pay for them an average of 2½ per cent, of the turnover, and he must recover the cost
    246
    of this from the consumer in some way or another.
    If his trade increased by 30 per cent, or more, the extra cost could possibly be absorbed in the higher turnover, but such an increase in turnover is most unlikely. I have been investigating this matter, and during the past few months I have not come across a single trader who has managed to increase his turnover by anything like those dimensions as a result of the introduction of stamp trading. Admittedly, where a shop has gone over to new self-service techniques which did not exist before, it has been possible to increase the turnover because the shop has been made more attractive and the service has been quicker. But I have come across no example of a trade increase arising simply as a result of stamps being introduced.
    As everyone knows who has been into a shop handing out stamps, the result of stamp trading has been an increase in the prices charged to the consumer. Hon. Members may have seen in the Guardian today a letter from a correspondent in Bristol comparing two supermarkets in Bristol; one is giving stamps, and it is charging a higher price on a range of commodities. This undoubtedly must be the case; these firms must recoup the cost of the stamps which they hand out, and the housewife pays extra for the dubious benefit of collecting stamps. At the end of the period, when she has managed to fill several books, she can exchange them for the gift which the stamp firm shows in its attractive catalogue.
    There are other aspects of this problem to which I should like to refer if the House will bear with me. The stamp firm is paid in advance for the stamps which it gives to the trader, but it may be several years before the stamps which have been issued are redeemed. This means that the stamp firm has the use of that money over this period. This is one of the ways of creating the extra profits which are being made by these concerns.
    A number of stamps which are issued by the traders are not collected by the customers who have them thrust into their hands. They are thrown on one side or possibly collected for a period, in the expectation of acquiring a gift, and then thrown aside because the

    247
    housewife gives up hope of ever being able to collect stamps in the quantity required. She throws the books away or puts them away and forgets about them.
    What is the percentage of the stamp turnover which is not redeemed? I have discussed this with executives of stamp trading firms, and they admit that 15 per cent, are not redeemed. I believe that it may well be higher than that. It may be 25 per cent, or even more. We shall not know exactly how high this percentage is for some time because the quantity of stamps being handed out is going up and up and is likely to continue to increase if the boom goes on for another few years.
    What would be the position if in a few years' time it were found that the stamp trading firms had over-extended themselves and spent so much money on promotion that they had insufficient assets to honour the stamps already handed out? With other financial institutions, such as the insurance companies, the Government step in to ensure that there are proper standards of control. I think that they must step in and ensure that there are controls over the operations of stamp trading firms so that housewives are not too much misled by all this trading propaganda.
    At a Press conference this morning Lord Sainsbury suggested that stamp trading firms should be forced to put the actual value in cash on the stamps which they issue and that these stamps should then be redeemable for cash. This is a very sensible idea which needs to be examined, but the best thing that the housewife can do is to shop at an organisation or with a trader giving value for money at the point of sale. Nothing can equal this value from the housewife's point of view.
    In declaring an interest in the cooperative movement I suggest that it has been from profit-sharing organisations like the co-operative societies that the consumers have been likely to get a better deal. A dividend which is a cash return is by far the best way of the consumer getting back any extra which can be made in this trading operation.
    I hope that before we end the debate we shall have an indication from the Conservative Party that it has the con-
    248
    sumers' interests in mind and will do something to protect the housewife, in particular, from this development of stamp trading and from the increase practically every week in the number of stamp firms operating in this country—and the introduction of such ideas from the United States, although apparently in the United States the stamp trading craze is already beginning to wane.
    6.59 p.m.
    Mr. John Page: It is a great pleasure for me for once to agree with statements made by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stone-house). I agree with his statements about the training and retraining aspects of the Gracious Speech and about severance payments. I am doubtful whether he is on such firm ground in his discussion about stamp trading. At the end of his speech he said that it was up to the consumer, properly protected, to make his choice. I am a shopper who objects very much to being given more odds and ends by way of change and ticket to put into my pocket. I believe that there are a large number of people who would prefer good service to stamps. I believe that it is up to organisations which do not agree with stamp trading to put up a notice outside their shops or petrol stations saying, "We do not give stamps. We give service". If such an attacking attitude were adopted, the customer would be able to choose for himself which way he wanted to go.
    I want now to draw attention to this sentence in the Gracious Speech—
    "My Ministers will bring forward further proposals for the modernisation of Britain, covering many of the economic and social aspects of our national life."
    The Government have made a start with many new plans. I wonder where their next attack will be. It is important that modernisation of our institutions should be properly planned and phased. "Modernisation" is not a very happy word to use in connection with the life of the country, but I admit that I cannot think of a better one at the moment. I think that it is suitable, because on the whole "modernisation" is used in connection with structures but not in connection with people or even with manufactured goods. One talks about modernisating a house. One does not modernise a car. One can modernise a

    249
    shop or an office building but one cannot modernise a play—or, if it is tackled, it is usually very unsuccessful.
    When a house is modernised it is important that the various equipment should be installed at the same time. A house should not be redecorated and rewired afterwards. Plumbing should not be carried out after decorating, thus spoiling the decorating. One does not then want to put in central heating. The different jobs must be carried out at the same time to a preconceived plan. Further, when modernising a building one must ensure that the foundations and structure are sound before going in for detailed work.
    The two most important institutions at which we must look in the context of modernising Britain are the Government structure and the industrial structure. We should examine the foundations of the Government structure—Parliament, the Government Departments, and the Civil Service. In the industrial stucture, there are the manufacturing industries, those who work in them, and the trade unions.
    Dealing first with the Government structure, I have been in the House for far too short a time to make worth-while suggestions about changes in Parliamentary procedure. Debates on this subject, occasioned largely by the publication of an article by a number of my hon. Friends—in which I collaborated—entitled "Change or Decay", brought to light many ideas for changes in Parliamentary procedure. The only contribution I feel able to make from my experience, having been in the House nearly four years, is that I am still convinced that it is important that hon. Members should have outside interests and then come to the House and contribute from their particular knowledge gained outside. It would be a great loss to the House if every Member of Parliament became a full-time professional.
    I speak from personal experience from working in the manufacturing industry. As the years have passed I have found it increasingly difficult to make a worthwhile contribution to the House and do a decent job for my firm. Such things as morning Committees and the long hours spent in the House while Bills are considered in Committee of the whole House make it difficult indeed for Mem-
    250
    bers with outside interests to make a proper contribution in the two spheres. Therefore, I should have welcomed a statement in the Gracious Speech that a new Select Committee on Procedure was to be set up to examine our proceedings to see if we can modernise the way we work. I say this with the greatest respect, Sir, because I believe that the most important thing that a new Member feels on entering the House is the sense of continuity of the work at Westminster over hundreds of years. That sense of continuity cannot be retained unless we in the House are prepared to change our way of work.
    I turn to the Government Departments and the Ministers and civil servants who work in them. I know that I am being presumptuous, but I hope that what I have to say will appeal to my hon. Friends now sitting on the Front Bench. I think that Ministers running Government Departments are grossly and absurdly underpaid. The salaries of all Ministers should be increased. The salaries of all Ministers should be increased. The status of junior Ministers should be greatly improved. The positions of Parliamentary Secretary and Under-Secretary of State should be abolished. We should substitute in their place Ministers of State and Deputy Ministers. It is important that those who are now Under-Secretaries should be clearly named to be the deputies of Ministers when Ministers are away. They should be given that name. That new status should be accepted by the House, by the Civil Service and by all organisations with which junior Ministers come into contact. I do not think that outside Whitehall the responsibilities carried by junior Ministers are appreciated nearly as much as they should be.
    There is a great deal of unfounded criticism of civil servants. I genuinely believe from my short experience of contact with civil servants that in experience, expertise and knowledge, British civil servants are superior to people holding similar positions in industry. If any criticism is justified it is not of the civil servants themselves but of the antiquated procedures they must use in their jobs. A lot of the criticism of civil servants comes from people in the business and professional

    251
    world. Some company chairmen complain of the slowness of decisions made by Departments, although they do not appreciate the responsibility which civil servants have, particularly in relation to the making of mistakes and the taking of snap decisions.
    Those who work in private industry have the great advantage that when they make mistakes those mistakes do not necessarily have to come to light at company annual general meetings. I doubt whether company chairmen would like to be made responsible for the snap decisions of their executives in the sort of way that Ministers are held responsible for the decisions of those who work in their Departments. The necessity to protect the Minister is probably more significant than anything else in the slowness with which civil servants seem to work. One must bear in mind the checking and re-checking that must go on before a decision is made. May I suggest a solution?
    Two or three firms of outside consultants should be called in to examine some branches of different Government Departments and make recommendations on how modern scientific managerial practices could be substituted for some of the existing methods. These firms should be given access to Ministers and support by civil servants, and their object should be to see that their recommendations would produce a smaller number of people employed, the existing procedures more quickly carried through and similar improvements to produce a smaller and more manageable Department of higher paid civil servants. Their work might be called de-Parkinsonisation.
    I have so far discussed the Government structure over which my right hon. Friends have great influence or direct control. I now deal with the modernisation of our industrial structure, over which they have no control or only indirect control and in which only their influence prevails. The two main groups which must be influenced are management and the trade unions. It is only in the co-operation of these two bodies that we shall get the 4 per cent, per year increase in productivity which we must have.
    252
    It is up to management and trade unions, with Government influence, to try to see that those who work in productive industry can become enthusiastic about industrial change; to see that employees find in modern machinery and techniques not a threat to their jobs but the possibility of increases in the standard of living of themselves and those in the service industries—people like teachers, nurses, policemen and so on, all of whom depend on productive industry to increase the wealth of the country.
    How will we get this co-operation and these results? There is the human side—the people who can use the new techniques—and the technical side of the techniques. Taking the human side first, the Contracts of Employment Act, which was passed last Session, was a rather shaky but nevertheless important step forward. I have always regarded a contract of employment as a sort of safe in which the employee can store away the other fringe benefits and undertakings which industry, government and trade unions can give to him. It is appropriate, therefore, that the Gracious Speech should contain references to redundancy and severance.
    I cannot wholly agree with the hon. Member for Wednesbury when he spoke of the Government's part in redundancy and severance schemes, except that initially the Government will probably have to underwrite schemes introduced by firms and industry because until funding can take place, particularly in contracting industries, there may not exist the financial background to make the required payments. However, I am utterly opposed to a Government redundancy scheme based wholly on National Insurance principles, with merely an increased payment by employer and employee for the stamp.
    It is vitally important for the Government to produce their scheme urgently for severance and redundancy because until the employee really understands that if he becomes redundant he will be looked after he will naturally oppose the institution of new techniques. We must be quick about introducing the Government's scheme or the pace of introducing these new techniques will be slower.
    Some hon. Members opposite may not have had the opportunity of reading an

    253
    excellent pamphlet produced by the Conservative Political Centre entitled "Industrial Change—The Human Aspect" in the production of which I played a small part. II might help the party funds if hon. Members opposite will buy copies for themselves rather than my relating the contents of the pamphlet to them. It is important to realise that the technical side of the modernisation of industry is the crux of the matter and is where the new productive effort will be felt.
    New techniques can be introduced only into manufacturing companies that have sufficient technical "know-how" and financial backing to understand the possibilities of the new techniques and which are able to afford to install the new equipment and see that it is properly developed. I do not believe that at the present moment the structure of manufacturing industry makes it capable of accepting the new techniques and opportunities that are offered.
    More than half of our employees in manufacturing industry work in firms with under 500 employees. That information comes from the White Paper on Scientific and Technological Manpower in Great Britain. Three-quarters of the technologists and scientists in general in industry are employed by firms with over 500 employees, and of the remaining quarter of technologists who work in the smaller firms only about 2 per cent, spend their time on research and development; all the rest of their time is spent on day-to-day technical working in the factory.
    We therefore have the position today that over half of those employed in manufacturing industry are employed by firms that do virtually no research and development at all. The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) yesterday rather sneeringly spoke of takeover bids, but I think that the merging of firms is something that we should all encourage so as to have a smaller number of larger units which will be able to afford to introduce the new technologies.
    A solution to this state of affairs could be by the Government not placing orders for any projects, whether or not they are technical projects, with companies that do not have a sufficient manufacturing technical background. In the Service industries one has the Admiralty Inspection Department, for example, which sees that the companies that sell
    254
    them vital parts have technical backing. We should have, as authorised Government suppliers of any product, only those companies that are able to show that they are pulling their weight in the introduction of modern techniques and in the employment of the new technologists whom we are getting in greater numbers.
    I have made the cardinal mistake in any speech in this House of covering very thinly a very wide and important field, but the main point is that the modernisation of our institutions must be carried out concurrently. I hope that my right hon. Friends will not be swayed by strong lobbies in the House against changes in procedure; by marches of senior civil servants from the Athenaeum, by marches of trade union leaders from Transport House, or even by marches of members of the Institute of Directors from the Albert Hall.
    7.25 p.m.
    Mr. Iorwerth Thomas: I have no desire to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page). He spoke of the information to be obtained by the purchase of a pamphlet, but judging by the complexity and diversity of his speech it is more a matter of purchasing an encyclopaedia than a pamphlet. The important aspects of the Gracious Speech have not received from him the emphasis one would have expected.
    What is to me a very serious omission from the Gracious Speech, though it may seem slight to many hon. Members, is that though mention is made of Scotland and of the North-East there is a complete absence of reference to a very important region—Wales. [HON. MEMBERS: "Region"] It is a region in the context of the Government's proposal to attack on a territorial basis the problem of high unemployment. We have in Wales a Board of Trade controller and a Ministry of Labour controller, so that it has been acknowledged that the Principality has some significance in the central Administration. There is, however, a danger that the problems remaining in the pockets of high unemployment in certain parts of Wales may be obscured by the continued general references to Scotland and the northern part of England.

    255
    I want to point to certain weaknesses in the present administration of the Local Employment Act. The Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot use the country's resources and expand our economy until such time as that Act, which is the basis upon which the Board of Trade and the Treasury operate, is fundamentally altered. Whatever may be in the mind of the Board of Trade in respect of the regions concerned, I do not think that the Government can attain their objectives unless we have a very different Statute.
    Examination of the position of the Board of Trade under the present Act reveals the strange and ludicrous fact that the Board of Trade has no direct and positive power to implement the desires of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Who, therefore, has the power under the Act to deal with development districts and the unemployment in them? Is it the Chancellor? No. Is it the President of the Board of Trade? No. Is it the Cabinet? No. The people who have the right to determine the fate of our unemployed are five persons comprising a sub-committee appointed by the Board of Trade to make decisions on grants and loans. Once that subcommittee has made its decision, neither the Board of Trade, the Treasury nor this House has the right to challenge, amend or vary it.
    This small sub-committee is known as B.O.T.A.C., a Board of Trade advisory committee appointed by the Board of Trade itself, to recommend whether applications from industrialists shall be accepted or rejected. This sub-committee is composed of a chartered accountant, a divisional manager of LCI., the secretary of a metal-sheet company, and an ex-trade union official. The chairman is a professional accountant. He works on the basis of payment of compensation. He devotes only one-third of his professional time to this task. The remaining four, being part-time members, receive only their expenses, and they all confess that they work on these projects to the extent of only thirty hours a week.
    It is this small sub-committee, answerable to nobody, not even to the President of the Board of Trade, not even to this House, not even to the Chancellor of the
    256
    Exchequer, that has absolute power to decide whether a factory shall come to the Rhondda Valley, which has been an area of stubborn unemployment for the past thirty years. One knows of the distressed areas, the special districts, the development areas, and now the development districts under the present Act. This small body has the right to decide and the Board of Trade has no power to reverse that decision. To prove the point, I quote an extract from the minutes of evidence taken before Subcommittee F of the Estimates Committee, dealing with the administration of the local Employment Act.
    In the course of cross-examination of members of B.O.T.A.C. and the official representatives of the Board of Trade administration, this is the type of question put and answer given on page 184, paragraph 1086. The Chairman of the Estimates Committee is inquiring about loans and grants:
    "in the second and third lines of paragraph 3 you talk about the Board of Trade making loans and grants in accordance with the recommendations of the Advisory Committee."
    This was the question put to the representatives of B.O.T.A.C.
    "Is the Board of Trade in a position to accept those recommendations in whole or in part? Can it omit or refuse to recognise some of the recommendations of B.O.T.A.C?"
    This is what a gentleman of the name of Mr. Slimmings, who is the chairman, a professional chartered accountant, says:
    "The position, as I understand it, is that if we were to reject an application that is the end of it so far as the Board of Trade is concerned. They have no power to do anything. If we make a recommendation the Board has the power to refuse our recommendation. In practice I cannot remember an occasion when that situation has arisen."
    Furthermore, paragraph 1087 states:
    "Can the Board of Trade reject your recommendations?"
    This was a question put to the Chairman of B.O.T.A.C. He replied:
    "The Board of Trade have the power not to accept our recommendation if it is a positive recommendation."
    But there is a most important admission by a representative of the Board of Trade itself, a gentleman by the name of S. H. Levine, Assistant Secretary of the Distribution of Industry and Regional Division of the Board of Trade. This is the key man who represents the Board

    257
    of Trade on matters of distribution of industry. Answering a question he said:
    "I think that that is so. As we understand it, and as we administer it, we have no power to amend or vary a B.O.T.A.C. recommendation."
    I think it is a very serious position that, in decisions that are so vital to the administration of this Act, that are so vital in order to use and harness the unused resources of this country to solve the problem in the development districts, no part of the Government administration has the right to question, to vary, or to reject a recommendation of this part-time committee. The Board of Trade itself appointed this subcommittee. It is their little infant and the infant has become an enfant terrible in that he can answer his parents back and say, "I can give you no reason whatsoever why applications for grants or loans are being refused to certain firms".
    Up to January, 1963, B.O.T.A.C. dealt with 649 applications and rejected 306, and there is no Minister who is in a position to know why. He has no right to ask the reason for the rejection. He is compelled to accept this attitude and this decision from the sub-committee which he has appointed. It is a subcommittee of part-time members outside this House responsible to nobody. If this position is to remain, what prospects are there of the Government achieving what is indicated in the Gracious Speech? Therefore, there is no good purpose in announcing these great policies and that the problem of unemployment will be attacked by the Government with conviction and sincerity, if it cannot be done by means of the present instruments that are in the hands of the Government.
    It is high time that some reorganisation took place of the machinery of the administration of the Local Employment Act. A part-time sub-committee works, as it says in the evidence, an average of 30 hours per week and the chairman gives up one-third of his professional time to it. Is it fair to these men and is it fair and just to the people who are unemployed in the development districts? Is it fair to the President of the Board of Trade? It is no good the Chancellor making speeches about the desirability of expansion of our economy and increased production in these circumstances.
    258
    I know that quite recently an application was made by an engineering firm, which I shall not name, which produces capital goods with an export percentage of nearly 45, which has been expanding during the past three years and which made an application to come into a development district in the Rhondda Valley. This was turned down. Let us concede that there might have been some justification for its being turned down. It could have been turned down on a general conclusion arrived at superficially. It could have been turned down owing to some marginal consideration—but nobody knows. Nobody is entitled to know. The House has no right to know. We are therefore in exactly the same position as is the Board of Trade.
    When applications are considered by B.O.T.A.C, especially with the chairman being a professional chartered accountant, they may be rejected on very narrow, text-book, conventional, orthodox accountancy considerations. On the other hand, if social accountancy were applied to applications of this character, and this were within the full knowledge of the Board of Trade which had the power to intervene in the considerations and examine the reasons for rejection, the Board, on an assessment of an application based on social accountancy, could reverse the decision and grant the application.
    When applications are considered on a strictly conventional orthodox assessment by a professional chartered accountant I have reason to believe that this is responsible in a large measure for rejection. If social accountancy were applied to one of the applications I have mentioned, how would it work out? It was promised that 300 men would be employed in a factory which was to be established in my constituency. These 300 men are today on the dole. They are paid £75,000 a year, on the assumption that the average income from unemployment benefit and National Assistance is £5 a week. I know that in loans and grants, and assuming that loans were converted into grants over a period of 15 years, the application involved a sum of £22,000 a year. All that would be required on the principle of social accountancy would be that the Minister of Labour, instead of paying out £75,000 a year to 300 unemployed men, would pay £22,000 a

    259
    year. He would save £50,000 and he would give 300 men the opportunity of being employed and of earning on an average £10 a week. This is what I mean by social accountancy.
    The classical example of social accountancy is the agricultural industry. Agriculture was not a viable industry. The money which is being ploughed into it is not being ploughed in as a result of a narrow orthodox conventional assessment on an accountancy basis. It is the overriding social considerations in the application of social accountancy which have ploughed into agriculture in the past 15 years over £6,000 million of taxpayers' money. If that money can be poured into agriculture through social accountancy and can be poured into the TSR2 project, the Government can spend money in many directions if it is thought to be for the social benefit. I say, therefore, that the Board of Trade must revise the machinery and must have the power to decide whether development districts can have industries. This should not be decided by a committee outside the Administration. It should be decided by the President of the Board of Trade, using the machinery of the Board to make the final decision whether or not development districts should have these industries.
    I trust that when we consider the high-sounding proposals made by the President of the Board of Trade, with his new designation, serious consideration will be given to these points to make sure that, when the Department itself is responsible, hon. Members on both sides of the House are in a position to question in a general way the reasons for the rejection of an application. I hope that we shall not be left in our present helpless position in which both we and Ministers are unable to challenge, vary, reject or reverse any decision made by B.O.T.A.C. Only in this way shall we find positive machinery to implement the desires of both sides of the House.
    7.45 p.m.
    Mr. William Yates: The hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas) has brought a valid point to the attention of the Government. As I have said earlier, we
    260
    are in the House with a primary responsibility to our constituents. The majority of us have represented our constituencies for some time and we have had ample opportunity to pay attention to the very sort of points which the hon. Member has raised. But there are few occasions when it is possible in the House to draw attention to major points affecting one's own constituents, unless it is done in a debate on the Adjournment or a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. The only other days in the year on which it is possible, unless one brings in a Private Member's Bill or a Ten Minute Bill, are during the first two days of the debate on the Address.
    I want, therefore, to look directly at the words of the Gracious Speech. Before the craziness of the General Election is upon us, and it seems to be coming fairly soon, we should examine the speech fairly and should say quite honestly that in it there are many things which will benefit the country and our own constituents.
    The most important point in the Gracious Speech is contained in the paragraph which reads:
    "My Ministers recognise the importance of securing a substantial further expansion of the universities and of other institutions of higher education."
    This is my first opportunity to say that the whole problem of university education should be tackled straight away.
    The other problem which all of us have come across when visiting the homes of our constituents is the anxiety of those who in their day have saved up money and bought a small house and have calculated what their pensions would be either from private industry or the State or a nationalised industry and have suddenly found themselves faced with a tremendous increase in rates far beyond anything they had ever expected. Time and again I have been worried by the plight of retired people who are faced with the anxiety of local rates. I am therefore delighted to see in the closing words of the Gracious Speech that:
    "A Bill will be laid before you providing relief to certain householders suffering hardship from increased rates as the result of the revaluation of their houses."
    I want to see this Bill brought before the House at the very first opportunity.

    261
    I shall certainly judge the Government and so will the country, on the speed with which they introduce this Bill.
    Those of us who know the cities have been extremely worried about crimes of violence and their victims. There was one in my own constituency. That person used to live a perfectly normal life and now is completely incapacitated However many difficulties the lawyers may say exist, I hope that the Government will see that this Measure for compensation is brought forward.
    Having congratulated the Government on these excellent provisions, I hope they will give some attention to other matters. I was rather annoyed when I read the Order Paper and saw that the Liberal Party had already been discussing the question of the reform of this House. How many times have we had Select Committees considering the proceedings in this House? How many times have we asked that certain Measures should be discussed in Standing Committee instead of on the Floor of the House? How many times have we asked for the reform of this House?
    Why cannot the proceedings be televised? We have the Postmaster-General with us at the moment. What prevents us having a television "HANSARD"? It may be that if the proceedings were televised and the viewers saw that it was only the hon. Member for The Wrekin speaking, they would not pay any attention to the broadcast, but that does not matter. If we believe that what goes on in this place is valuable, people should have it direct in their homes in an ordinary HANSARD television programme of the day. I cannot see that there is anything violently outrageous in the suggestion that the proceedings should be televised in 1964. Surely there is nothing in this House of which we are ashamed. We uphold the great heritage of Parliamentary democracy. If we are the upholders of Parliamentary democracy and if this is the cradle of Parliamentary democracy, why are we frightened of having our proceedings televised?
    Let me utter another word of warning to the Government. Before the next General Election the Government will have to look carefully at the whole question of the land around our towns. We are to have a new town at Dawley.
    262
    Actually, my house will be almost in the centre of it. It is planned for about 90,000 people. Around the outside of the town, in areas which I hoped would have been kept clear, permission has been given to firms to undertake a little private development building on their own. When I questioned an official about this and asked why this building was to be permitted when the new town of Dawley was in the offing, I was told, "The Government decided to give way under very great pressure." My answer is: what pressure and by whom?
    This is the sort of question that one's constituents would like answered. What great pressure was brought on whom, by whom, where and when? It looks as though the Government will have to reexamine the whole question of land required for new towns and town development. If it is possible to designate an area for a new town and to have a new town commission, what prevents the Government appointing a town lands commission? I am not stealing any ideas from the Leader of the Opposition, but it seems to me that this is the sort of question which many people would like to have brought to the attention of the Government.
    Another matter which interests me is export trade. Let us consider the problem of the Export Credits Guarantee Department. In 1961 I said that matching credits for our exporters was a good idea, but do we really believe that in the rough and tumble of export business a Department of the Board of Trade is the right sort of body to be leading the advance and encouraging British business people in the export field? I am glad to know that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is taking a note of my remarks. I hope the Government will note what industrialists and others are saying, that although the whole system of E.C.G.D. is correct, it is very slow in administration. If we are to compete against European exporters, including the Germans, and against the United States, we shall have to have a simpler and better method of dealing with long-term credit for British exports.
    I should like to turn to some problems which I have been examining in my own constituency during the Recess. The challenge is always offered to us

    263
    by the Opposition that during the last five or six years there has been stagnation and that the Conservative Party has suddenly come forward with a new idea—modernisation. It is palpably absurd to pretend that all of a sudden we have brought out a plan for modernisation and have said that it is a plan on which we are going to win the election.
    I looked into this matter during the Recess. What are the important considerations? First, there is the question of communications, and this is not so good. One cannot build a new town catering for 90,000 people without first considering the access roads to the new town. It is no use wanting to build a new town and then taking up the railway lines in the areas where they might be required to serve the new town.
    I do not know where the co-ordination is between the Government Departments, but, like this House, the whole of the Government machinery needs examining. It is not for me to initiate a debate on that subject, because a very able speech was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page), who has spent some time studying this matter; but we want Parliament as well as the Civil Service administration examined and modernised.
    Another question to consider is that of roads. County council officials go to a farmer, as they did in the area of Cold Hatton, Whitchurch Road, and say, "We want to take some land from you". The farmer says, "All right, you can have the land", and he expects to see a road constructed on that land in the course of the financial year. Instead, he sees the whole of the year's crop on that land wasted and no road going through. When county councils and Government Departments are working on these matters I wish they would co-ordinate a bit better and not put local farmers to the inconvenience of having their land taken away before the plans are ready for the roads to be built.
    One of the best forms of communication is the telephone system. People ask what is being done about the telephone service. Let me give one example. A new telephone exchange has just been opened in Wellington. People have been
    264
    waiting for this exchange for some time. The total cost was £167,000. The building itself cost £52,000. We now have a dialling system which enables me to talk direct to the Whips' Office from Wellington. There has been a new post office planned for Dawley which is to cost £10,000. I do not know what the state of affairs is in other constituencies, but when I examine some of the things which have been done in my area I know that the Government have been doing something about modernising communications.
    Next, what about schools? I have examined the school problem, too. I was staggered to find that in The Wrekin alone 12 major projects were completed during the past four years and 14 more are to be completed next year. During the past three years, a new college of higher education has been completed and a new Roman Catholic school has been built. One can go through a list of schools completed during the past two years or to be completed in the current year.
    In my view, in all that the county council and the Government do together, their finest work for the constituency lies in the school programme for the past four years and for the next two. If they have spent £500,000, all I can say, judging from the schools which I have visited, is that it is money well spent in the best possible way. I have had the opportunity of seeing six of the schools, and I am delighted to be able to assure——
    Mr. John Mackie: The hon. Gentleman is getting more than his share.
    Mr. Yates: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if he has not had sufficient service in his own constituency. He has only to ask the Government to see what they can do.
    I note, also, that the county council has spent £30,000 on the new youth centre in Wellington. It has modernised two schools, one at Wrockwadine Wood, and it is building a completely new junior school at Teague's Bridge to cost £61,600. The Roman Catholic school at Wellington, which I have been asking for during the past four years, cost £120,000, and it is now taking pupils.

    265
    I do not know what other hon. Members find in their constituencies, but, for the progress and modernisation which has gone on in and around The Wrekin, I must on this occasion thank the Government.
    It may be said that we have been lucky, that there has been some help with our schools, perhaps, because I raised the matter in Adjournment debates or went to see the Minister. It is the result of the planned progressive work of the Shropshire County Council and its education department, supported by the rates levied locally and supported by the great financial help which the Government have given to education. In this field, the Government can certainly be proud of the results.
    People may say that we are all right for schools, but what about the old people? Much has been done for old people, too. There was a new welfare home built at Dawley in 1961 for 40 residents, at a cost of £52,000. The furniture and capital equipment cost £6,000. A new old people's home, "Summer Croft", is to be built in Donnington at a cost of £77,500, and the furniture will cost £8,500. In considering what has been done by the local authority to provide old people's homes, one hears it said, "Of course, there are not sufficient homes for them". There may not be in certain cases, but the Government are trying. For instance, in Dawley alone 20 dwellings for old people have been built, at a financial subsidy of £800 a year. In Donnington there have been 13 dwellings built, the financial aid being £735 a year. In Ketley there have been 19, and in Newport there have been 20 dwellings, at an annual subsidy of £620.
    Throughout the area the W.V.S. are running a meals on wheels service. Old people in their homes are visited in Albrighton, Dawley, Newport, Oaken-gates, Shifnal and Wellington. The W.V.S. serves a total of 400 meals a day. If all this is what is meant by Conservative care and Conservative administration, I for one am proud of it. It is a very good start, and I am delighted at the work which has been done during the year.
    Now, having given the Government congratulations on what they have done for old people and what they are doing for schooling, I turn to the problem of
    266
    hospitals. I know that many hon. Members have been to Oakengates and Donnington, to the combined ordnance depot, and they are familiar with the area. In that area alone more houses have been built than in the whole of post-war building in Shrewsbury. This gives some idea of the changing pattern and the changing face of The Wrekin in the past five or six years. But, with all the people coming from all over England to our industries, there are very many young families and, therefore, above all things we want a hospital with good maternity services.
    Our local practitioners' committees say time and time again that, if it were not for the devotion of the matron, the sisters and the nursing staff in some of the maternity hospitals, the whole service would break down. I must be frank with the Government. I asked the former Minister of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, Southwest (Mr. Powell), to see The Wrekin Hospital for himself. It was made by converting an old workhouse. Although the conversion was good, there are no lifts in the building for old people or for expectant mothers. A woman has to pass through the main wards in order to get to the delivery wards. The system is quite archaic and wholly unsuited to an area developing as The Wrekin is now. The situation is really tragic. People in the hospital, patients and staff, have to walk up and down the flights of old workhouse stone stairs. We reckon that in a day's duty a nurse will have gone up and down stairs equivalent to climbing The Wrekin. That is enough for anyone. No modern hospital should be built without lifts.
    When a new housing estate is established, young people come in and it is at once essential to have sufficient maternity services for them. Now, we are told that at Dawley a new town designated for 90,000 people is to be accepted. Heavens above—what is to happen to our maternity services? How can we possibly manage? It was for this reason that I asked the former Minister to come to The Wrekin to see the problem for himself. As far as I can see, there is only one solution. Certain modifications must be made to The Wrekin Hospital and a complete new maternity wing must be built to cope with the influx of people. The population of my constituency has risen from

    267
    about 46,000 in 1955 to about 53,000 today. I must ask the Government to keep in mind the whole problem of the maternity services in the area.
    When the Government and the planning authorities give permission for great new housing estates to be established, why do not they insist that there must be a nursery school in the area? Why do not they insist in their plans that there must be children's playgrounds? I remember that I drew attention to this matter in my 1955 maiden speech. It seems to me to show a lack of social conscience to allow an area to be developed by a developer without a Conservative Government insisting on the proper facilities being provided. The lack of nursery schools in the new estates, especially in Wellington, for instance, is quite unwarranted. As far as I know, I have in my constituency only one nursery school, yet there are all these young people coming in with their young children who could go to nursery schools if they were there. The Government must do something about it.
    Now, I come to the worries and anxieties of our great and famous farmers around The Wrekin. I remember that, when I spoke before of Shropshire sheep, hon. Members opposite said, "What about the Welsh sheep?" Despite that, there have been great improvements in modernising farming in our area. Some of the plans are Government plans and some the plans of private industry. The Milk Marketing Board has extended its activities and is now processing larger supplies of milk, cream and dairy products at Crudginton. This is an advance for which the farming community is grateful.
    Fortunately, we have at Allscot one of the greatest sugar beet factories in the Midlands. It is all right for me to say that since my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro) is not here. It is far better than the one in his constituency. It has been decided that two new sugar silos should be put up to help to store the sugar. When one takes into account that farmers Li The Wrekin recently combined to build a grain drying store costing about £30,000, one realises that the Government and para-State organi-
    268
    sations like the Milk Marketing Board are making progress. Even if people do not want to believe it, Britain is modernising slowly but in its own particular way. I am delighted at the changes which have taken place in my constituency, and I hope that hon. Members can say the same for their own areas.
    I know that other hon. Members are anxious to take part in the debate. There are very few hon. Members on this side present, so I hope that hon. Members opposite will excuse me for speaking at some length. Considering the whole range of business throughout the constituency, I have to decide whether it is true that business is stagnating and production falling. I am not an economic expert and I can only report on the industries which I have in my constituency. Let me give one example. Here I should declare an interest because I am business consultant for the firm which I am about to mention in its export work. The firm of Messrs. Joseph Sankey has in Hadley, near Wellington, the biggest wheel plant in Europe. It is not satisfied that its output is sufficient to take up all orders in the years to come. Therefore, rightly, it has said, "We will have a modernisation plan."
    It has decided this year to spend £150,000 on the wheel shop. Looking back over the years, one may ask, "Has this concern been stagnating? Have people been thrown out of work in this engineering firm?" Of course not. In order to keep up with the Germans, Czechoslovaks, Russians and others, the company spent on modernisation £3£ million.
    This is typical of business firms in the area in modernising both by themselves and with the help of the Government. One might say, "Taking into account that in The Wrekin there is one of the largest combined ordnance depots, what have the Government done about modernising it? The House and the country ought to know." There is nothing secretive about this, but one of the largest computors has now gone into operation in order to save money for the taxpayer. It will help in all the accounting and with the various orders which are sent to the depot to provision and supply the Army throughout

    269
    the world. I do not understand the Opposition's complaint about progress and modernisation in the area from which I come.
    It is clear that if the country progresses as it is and modernisation takes place in a planned, logical and sensible way, there will be no major industrial upheaval and no major loss of impetus in industry. However, I must say this to the younger people of the country, and I do not mean any offence to hon. Members opposite. I had the opportunity to see what a Socialist Government was like when hon. Members opposite had the power to run the country. When I hear reports of Mr. Cousins' speeches at Labour Party conferences, I realise that they really want to try to bring Britain up to date, but they are stuck with the old tramlines of the past. One section of the party wants to go ahead in modernising Britain and another section does not really want to do that. It is sad that from time to time some Members of the Labour Party have said, "If there is unemployment we will safely get into power".
    I hope that on reflection the country will consider that what has taken place over the last twelve years is something of which we can be proud. I have warned people before that if they throw away all that has been done for them, I should not like to promise the same things for them in future as they have had in the past.
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. John Mackie: First and foremost, I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister on getting into this House. I am not sure that I congratulate him on the way that he got here, but, nevertheless, I am sure that we all wish him a happy but short time in the job.
    The hon. Member for Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates)—
    Mr, W. Yates: It is called "The Wrekin", please
    Mr. Mackie: The hon. Member for The Wrekin has covered a multitude of subjects, mostly, as he said at the beginning of his speech, constituency ones. As it happens, I have made a note of almost all of them and they coincide with many of mine. Therefore, perhaps the hon. Member will excuse me if I do not follow
    270
    him in detail meantime. However, I should like to deal with two things that he said. First, he thought that the House should be televised. I do not know what his constituents would think if he were televised sitting there with rows of empty benches behind him. I have never heard a greater under-statement than the one he made when he said that there are not many hon. Members opposite wanting to speak. In fact, no hon. Member opposite, apart from himself, is present.
    The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the question of co-ordination in taking over land. One thing which I as a farmer hate to see is pieces of land doing nothing with weeds growing on them and not being used. When one inquires, as I have done often, one finds that they are scheduled for a particular job and that the owner has been warned that something would be built on the land or that a road would go through it. But the hon. Member must realise that his own party is largely responsible for that, because local authorities and people who are given permission to start things and told that they can go ahead, with the farmer being warned to get off the land, find in six months' time that they are prevented from going ahead. The hon. Member must consider who is to blame when this sort of this happens.
    Like all my hon. Friends and, no doubt, I hope, like hon. Members opposite, I am delighted and pleased to hear that the Government will do all the things which are absolutely necessary for the good of the country. We have been asking them to do these for a long time. I am certain that any number of hon. Members opposite, when one looked at them when their benches were a little more full than they are now when the Prime Minister was speaking, were just as surprised as we are at the suddenness with which the cash has become available for all this progress of which we have heard.
    I will give just two examples. In April I wrote to the Minister of Education. In May I got a reply, which was simply a long explanation that the money was not available to build a new school in Enfield and that we could apply again, perhaps in 1964 or 1965. Less than six weeks later, £5 million extra came to the Middlesex County Council and the new school was made possible within less

    271
    than six weeks. I cannot think that the situation altered during that time. There must have been more to it than just a change of heart.
    I have a relative who is a member of a hospital management committee. The hospital in question, like many other hospitals, was built just before the war and is not too modern. The committee had £20,000 to spend on various essential items costing up to at least £100,000 and an endeavour was made to allocate the right priorities first. In the middle of the discussion, however, the secretary was called away. He came back a few minutes later and said, "Forget our discussion, ladies and gentlemen. I have just had a telephone message that we can spend £100,000." This kind of thing is going on all over the country. There is no doubt that people are wondering why the money has suddenly become available. In his speech this afternoon the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that our progress has been gradual. If it has been gradual, the production of the cash should have been gradual and equal and not in spurts. We are all very suspicious of these spurts.
    I want now to touch a little on the economic side of the Gracious Speech. As an amateur economist I stand to be corrected by the professional economists, whom I violently distrust because they are nearly always wrong. It has been fairly well proved that the economists who have been advising the Government in the last 12 years have been wrong at least four times, because during that period we have had, I think, three extra Budgets and last year we had what was equivalent to an extra Budget all within less than six months of the originals. Therefore, the advice from the professional economists could not have been very good and I am not at all frightened to come into the picture with my calculations. They are probably too simple for the experts, but here they are.
    Our gross national product is between £24,000 million and £25,000 million, Four per cent, of that is roughly £1,000 million. Out of the gross national product, the Government get a figure of £7,000 million to spend; that is the national Budget. If that is the rate at which they get the money, all that they
    272
    will get out of the £1,000 million—and I am not so sure that they will get this figure—is the tax from it, which, if it is at the same rate, will be about £350 million. That is the extra money they will have from a 4 per cent, increase which they expect to get.
    I am not so sure that the Government will get even that figure, because we on this side hope, as I think the Government would hope, too, that a lot of this increase in production and wealth will go to the underpaid people. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) hopes that a lot of it will go to the agricultural industry and agricultural workers and to other lower-paid workers, who will not be paying much tax. I doubt, therefore, whether the figure that the Government get will be as much as even I am allowing, about £300 million out of the £1,000 million. I admit that as a result of extra spending, there will be an extra yield by way of Purchase Tax and Excise Duty, but, on the whole, I doubt very much whether the figure that the Government get will do anything like touch the amount of money that they will spend. The country should be given an explanation of where this money is to come from.
    We on this side have been accused of making promises and the like, but at least we have suggested some extra taxation to get hold of some of this production, particularly by means of a capital gains tax—I mean a proper capital gains tax—which will collect a certain amount of money. It will be interesting to see in the next Budget the figure that the present capital gains tax collects. We have mentioned also a wealth tax of some description to get some of the tax-free money that is going about the country.
    I should like to raise another few points which appear in the Gracious Speech, the first being exports, which have a lot to do with our economy. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) made a long speech yesterday, in most of which he stressed incentives for export. He gave examples of tax relief, and so on, which he would give. I think it would be one of the most difficult things to give that type of incentive. Take, for example, motor cars alone. Half of them consist of

    273
    parts made by accessories firms, but the cars are exported in the names of the firms which make them. How are we going to help the accessories people?
    Mr. W. Yates: I think I can help on this. The accessories people, from what I understand in the Midlands, are perfectly glad to have permanent contracts with the motor industry and would let the industry itself—the manufacturers—collect the rebate.
    Mr. Mackie: That may be so, but I still think the difficulty of incentives to export on a tax relief basis is very great indeed.
    I think it was the hon. Member for Harrow,, West (Mr. John Page) who a few minutes ago talked about modernisation. In the last speech he made he wanted to modernise six million houses with secondhand baths. What he wanted was a complete monopoly in industry. I doubt very much whether we would get that.
    However, on exports I should like to emphasise what I have said in this House before, that I think there must be some channelling of our buying and selling so that we sell where we buy. Where we buy we must sell. Any amount of exhortation to export goes on, but nobody has said where or what we should export. Surely this is common sense? As the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) said, we require food and raw materials, and about half our food and most of our raw materials come from abroad and amount to a figure round about £4,500 million of imports altogether. We know where they come from. Surely we should try to sell in those countries where we buy those things. There are no directions at all about this, and there is not even exhortation as to that. For instance, consider the amount of wheat we buy from Canada. Yet nobody gives instructions, "Go sell such and such to Canada", with the result that there is an imbalance there. It is the same with Denmark, and so on. The haphazard way we go about our exports is quite ridiculous and we shall never get anywhere till we do something about it.
    We could help our economic position by greater home production. In my own industry, agriculture, we could produce
    274
    more food and help in the balance between imports and exports through lesser imports of food. The Gracious Speech says that the Government
    "will ensure a proper balance between homegrown and imported food on the basis of an efficient and prosperous home agriculture."
    Well, this balance is, of course, where the argument is. We all agree that there should be an efficient home agriculture. I think it was the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) who was very worried about the question of the bacon agreement with Denmark, where Denmark has been given a considerably greater share of our market than we have ourselves. This is not an easy problem by any manner or means, because the price question comes in.
    The hon. Member for Selly Oak did not mention this question of price, but this is where the great argument arises between farmers and the Government and the farmers and the other people of this country—the argument as to what is the right price. What is the right price? Is it a fair world price? Is it a surplus price? We must remember that a great amount of the food which comes into this country is just surplus in some other countries where it is produced and is not there produced specially for export, and so they sell it at low prices. It was the hon. Member for Louth who mentioned the fact that America has only to export 3 per cent, of her produce to pay for her imports. Therefore, the Americans do not have to worry unduly, but we in this country have to export one-third of what we produce to get the same result. A country which is exporting only a small percentage of its home-grown food, and exporting it as surplus food, can afford to take rather a low price for it. Is the right price, then, the surplus price? Or is the right price the price in the country of origin? Farmers in this country would be delighted to take the price the French get for their wheat.
    It is a difficult problem, and I think that most would agree with the Sunday Times which had an excellent article a month or two ago pointing out that an increase of agricultural production in this country would be to the benefit of the whole country, and I look forward to the Government's plans as to

    275
    how they are to do this, and particularly how they are to control imports.
    I do not want to go into details about this complicated subject, but I hope that we shall be told something definite. Gentlemen's agreements are all very well, but my experience is that the scarcest thing about them is gentlemen and that they mostly fall through. Anyway, we welcome the plans the Government have made, which should help considerably to even out prices and avoid the rises and falls, with their attendant increases to the taxpayer.
    I welcome the reference in the Gracious Speech to protection for producers of new plants and seeds. These people have done a tremendous service to agriculture and the nation. However, a person who raises a new plant, a new variety of oats or potatoes, never gets the benefit. It is always the developer who gets it. I understand that it is much the same with patents.
    I think particularly of two varieties of potato—Kerr's Pink, grown in Scotland, and eaten in Scotland because the Sassenachs find it too dry, and Arran Pilot, which we will not eat in Scotland at all but which is very popular in England. These varieties were produced by men who got little benefit whatsoever. The developers got the big financial advantage. I remember my father, who was very interested in the Arran Pilot potato, being absolutely furious that Mr. McKelvie, the raiser of it, had been awarded only the M.B.E. or the O.B.E. when other people who had not brought half the benefit to the country got knighthoods and so on. My father was furious that Mr. McKelvie did not get a greater honour for producing something which was of far more value to the country than many other things which have been produced.
    If these people are to benefit from the fact that they raise new seed, they must get the benefit quickly, particularly in the case of cereals, for because of the present rate of multiplication, it will be no good to them unless they obtain it quickly. I look forward to hearing how this is to be done.
    Housing was mentioned in the Gracious Speech—
    Notice taken that 40 Members were not present:
    House counted, and, 40 Members being present—
    8.34 p.m.
    Mr. Mackie: Before that very necessary interruption, I had begun to mention housing. I notice that my audience will not be very much increased, but it is a little better than it has been during most of my speech.
    Frankly, I find it very difficult to explain to my constituents why certain things are happening on the housing front. Local authorities have a considerable amount to do with housing and have an effect on housing. It is difficult to understand why the Government have managed to build only between 280,000 and 290,000 houses when they have plans to increase that number quickly to 360,000 or even more. If there is anything which it has been more necessary to provide during the last 12 years than housing I should like the Government to tell us what it is. Members of Parliament, no matter what constituency they may represent, have found this a burning question, but particularly has this been the case in the London area and in the big towns. We heard the argument today that if the Government have plans to increase housing the number of houses mentioned is too low. There is no question that a figure of 280,000 to 290,000 is far too low. It is difficult to think of an explanation. If more houses could be built next year why could not they have been built last year?
    I think it is because of the extraordinary amount of building potential taken up by office building and the provision of new garages and things of that sort for which we could easily have waited. No doubt many hon. Members saw the excellent photograph in The Times. It was taken from a helicopter and showed the fantastic amount of office building which has taken place over the last 10 years in the area of St. Pauls in the City. I see that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) who is also interested in this subject, is present in the Chamber.
    Mr. Graham Page: I should like to know whether the hon. Gentleman

    277
    is saying that we ought not to rebuild round St. Paul's, or replace the office accommodataion which was there.
    Mr. Mackie: I think it an absolute disgrace that pure commercialism should have resulted in the view being spoilt. I agree that we need a certain amount of office building, but there should have been some priority exercised and not a wholesale go-ahead with office building to the detriment of house building. I congratulate the hon. Member for Selly Oak on raising this matter from the benches opposite.
    The question of land is closely allied to housing. I do not wish to say too much on the subject now, because no doubt it will be dealt with during the housing debate next week. The hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) was worried about inflation. But nothing has caused inflation more than the free sale of land during the last five or six years. There is no question that land which formerly had little more than agricultural value is now being sold for sums like £20,000 or £30,000 per acre. That sort of thing should be noted by the hon. Member for Louth who is so worried about inflation.
    Sir C. Osborne: My point was about inflation in our industrial costs which would make it difficult for us to sell our goods abroad.
    Mr. Mackie: I remember that the hon. Member spoke about inflation and said he was worried. There are all sorts of inflation and the hon. Member cannot have it both ways. He ought to be worried about all types of inflation, and I hope that he is.
    I wish to refer to the paragraph in the Gracious Speech dealing with rating. I hope that Members of the Government occupying the Front Bench opposite will make a note of this. I am copying the hon. Member for The Wrekin who insisted on notes being taken. In that paragraph there is a reference to "certain householders". I should like the paragraph to refer to "certain houses". There has been correspondence with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government on the subject of the rerating of fiats for old people. In response to an appeal from my local council at Enfield where it is considered
    278
    that the rate is too high, the Ministry has stated that the old people could apply for National Assistance. The percentage for the country is a 2.8 per cent. increase for ordinary houses. It is about 3.4 per cent, for old people's flats and I think it wrong that these flats for old people should be rerated so highly. There will have to be fiats provided for old people only, for long enough. It is ridiculous for the Minister to say that they can apply for National Assistance.
    I must repeat what has been said from this side of the House time and again. It is not fair to ask people to go on National Assistance when that is not necessary and the case can be dealt with in some other way. I think hon. Members opposite do not appreciate how these people hate going on National Assistance, particularly older people. I appeal to the Government to have another look at the matter and, instead of saying "certain householders", to say "certain houses", these to include old people's fiats.
    I am interested in the reference to compensation, but I hope that this will cover more than victims of crimes of violence There is a case in my constituency of a Mrs. Brown of Ordnance Road, Enfield, who, four years ago, was walking on the pavement when a van passed her and the door was opened by a passenger in the van. It knocked her down and broke her leg. She has been incapacitated ever since. The passenger was a man of straw and could not pay any compensation. This lady has been an invalid for four years. Her husband had to change his job and work on night shifts so that he could look after her. She gets nothing by way of compensation. Surely that is as good a case for giving compensation as a case of anyone hurt in a crime of violence. There has been a legal battle over this.
    Mr. W. Yates: I have dealt with problems like this. Surely the insurance company was liable, unless the driver of the van was driving without a policy of third party insurance?
    Mr. Mackie: The passenger in the van opened the door and the driver of a car is not responsible for what his passenger does. This was a test case which was only drawn to my notice in the last month or two. There seems strong

    279
    grounds for something to be done. A clause should be put in to deal with compensation in things such as this. The way in which this poor lady has been treated is ridiculous. I have written to the Law Society and to others, but I have had no satisfaction. I notice some hon. Members connected with the legal profession are present. They often turn their minds to obtuse subjects which do not affect the individual. I should feel much obliged if they would turn their minds to this subject.
    As has been said, there is no use in having a new town unless there are roads leading to it. In my constituency we have been waiting long enough for the building of a major road. When the House met for a short time, had a debate for a few hours and then adjourned in order to appoint a Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport handed a note to the Leader of the House. That was when the Government were accused of delaying business and it was said that the Minister of Transport would not be answering Questions until the end of January. I presume that the note which was handed said that we could write to the Minister. I wrote to the Minister at least a month, if not two months, ago, but I have not received a reply about this road. I should like to think that the Government's roads programme will proceed a little quicker than the way in which we receive replies.
    A big programme of legislation has been put before us by the Government, but how long will it take to enact? It is obvious that most of it will not be enacted. When I walked with hon. Members from another place yesterday some hon. Members opposite had to admit that most of it would be only introduced. In other words, what we have been given is not legislation but an election manifesto. That is obvious to anyone who considers the time factor.
    It is suggested that unless we have an independent deterrent we shall not be consulted in any conference chamber about disarmament and such matters. Most thinking people will not stomach that nonsense. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) has dealt with that. Surely it is the negation of what the peoples of the
    280
    world want and it is completely divorced from the spirit of the United Nations.
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. A. V. Hilton: I fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) that the main proposals in the Gracious Speech are simply a Tory Party General Election manifesto. We have had more than twelve years of successive Tory Governments, and most of the things which they are now promising should have been done long ago. Now, within sight of a General Election, we have a long list of promises.
    We in the Labour Party have had our conference and have issued our proposals on most subjects. It seems to me that the Tory Party philosophy contained in the Queen's Speech is, "Anything the Labour Party can propose we can propose better".
    Agriculture is the main industry in my constituency in Norfolk, and I am always interested in any proposals for the benefit of agriculture. Three months ago the Labour Party published their proposals for the future of agriculture, and I am glad to say that they had a very good reception both by farmers and by farm workers. I am glad that there is a reference to agriculture in the Gracious Speech.
    Mr. W. Yates: There was last year.
    Mr. Hilton: There was last year and the year before that, and I will deal with that. This year we read that the Government will
    "ensure a balance between home-grown and imported food on the basis of an efficient and prosperous home agriculture".
    I am glad about this, and I wish that the Tory Government meant it, because the Labour Party, and I, have been advocating it for a long time. Agriculture deserves this.
    This prosperity existed in 1951 when the Tory Party became the Government, but in recent years agriculture has been gradually undermined and the situation is not nearly as good as when the Tories took office in 1951. This proposal in the Gracious Speech is all right if it means anything, but the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) is quite right—it is not the first time that we have had such promises from the Conservatives. Last year the Gracious

    281
    Speech contained almost the same phrase:
    "My Government intends to maintain a stable, efficient and prosperous agricultural industry".
    Let us briefly see what happened after that speech just over a year ago. There can be no doubt about the present efficiency of the industry. I do not say that it is 100 per cent., but there is great efficiency.
    Mr. John Biffen: May I ask the hon. Member to read the report in the OFFICIAL REPORT of a speech by his hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) in which he suggested that there was a great deal of scope for increased efficiency among British agriculturalists?
    Mr. Hilton: I was coming to that point. I was about to say that we are not 100 per cent, efficient and that there is room for greater efficiency, but already there is much efficiency in agriculture, and the record since the war proves this. I will quote the record of farmers and farm workers since the end of the war. Production has increased by over 80 per cent. This has been achieved with only 4 per cent, of the working population remaining in the industry and at a time when over 200,000 regular farm workers have left the industry. The annual value of the industry's production—£1,750 million—is a tremendous achievement. Agriculture is our oldest and most important industry. I believe the figures I have just given prove that.
    Mr. W. Yates: I am certain that those figures are absolutely correct, but can the hon. Gentleman tell me where in the last ten years a farm has gone begging? Does he know any case of a farm being sold where there have not been many applicants most anxious to join the prosperous farming industry?
    Mr. Hilton: I will make my own speech. Time is getting on. I shall probably come round to that point eventually. Tributes are frequently paid to the efficiency of modern farmers and farm workers. These tributes are well justified. We should do well to remember the terrible conditions under which farm workers had to struggle during the recent corn and potato harvests; paying tributes is not enough.
    282
    I turn to the question of prosperity. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East will appreciate that I am not talking about the large prosperous farmers who have interest in other industries. I am thinking of those who farm for a living and have no other interests. The available figures show that many farmers have an annual income of only £500 to £600. The national minimum wage for farmworkers will not be £9 10s. a week until later this month. Neither the Government nor anybody else in their senses would argue that that is a state of prosperity in this important industry. Both farmers and farmworkers deserve much better.
    I welcome the well deserved tribute that my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) paid last night to the efforts of farmworkers. He complained of the bad deaf they were having. He said, rightly, that in view of the importance of their work and of their splendid record they were entitled to wages and working conditions which were as good as those enjoyed by workers in other industries. I entirely agree. At present the average earnings of farmworkers are more than £4 a week less than the earnings of workers in other industries. Nobody can argue reasonably that small farmers and farmworkers are prosperous.
    In last year's Gracious Speech the industry was promised prosperity. Early this spring farmers from Norfolk and other parts of the country marched on Westminster to protest at the way they had been treated by the Government. I met constituents of mine from Norfolk. Other hon. Members met their constituents. Later hundreds of farmers from Norfolk signed a petition protesting at the way they were being treated by the Minister of Agriculture and the Government. I handed that on their behalf to the Minister, requesting that he should meet a deputation of the farmers and discuss their problems with them. One of their complaints was that they were not getting sufficient income to pay then-workers the wages which they could earn in industry. The then Minister of Agriculture refused to see that deputation and the Norfolk farmers whom I represent are still anxious to have this discussion with the Government.
    Sir C. Osborne: Would the hon. Member not agree that farmers cannot pay the wages they would like to pay unless the industry gets a better price for what it produces? Is it not our duty, therefore, to tell the country to be prepared to pay a better price for the food we produce?
    Mr. Hilton: I agree. No section of the community would wish to have cheap food at the expense of the small farmer and his employees, but that is happening. Like myself, the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) represents a large farming community. He, too, must be wondering for how long the small farmer and farm worker is to be treated in this way. The only way to improve the state of the agricultural industry is to have a change of Government. The Labour Party's new statement on agriculture shows that we are prepared to give a new deal to farmers and farm workers.
    The Gracious Speech makes a vague reference to horticulture when it states:
    "Legislation will be introduced to promote the well-being of horticulture."
    I hope the Government will spell out exactly what is meant by this reference, because the horticulturists who are doing an excellent job in my constituency want to know what that vague sentence is all about.
    I welcome the discussion that is taking place between both sides of industry about severance pay. However, will any scheme that is introduced apply to farm workers who become redundant? In January last, in the extremely cold spell, farm workers in my constituency, many of whom were in their sixties and who had been employed in agriculture for 40 or more years, were given a week's notice and dismissed. Elderly people cannot find jobs easily and if it is just for industrial workers to receive redundancy pay it is equally fair that farm workers should receive the same.
    Mr. W. Yates: It has occurred to me that I made a mistake earlier when, while the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) was speaking, I said that all the timber in this House had come from The Wrekin. In fact, it was taken to Newport, in The Wrekin, from an
    284
    area about 50 miles around The Wrekin and was then supplied to the House.
    Mr. Hilton: That interjection has nothing to do with what I am saying.
    There has in recent years been a steady decline in the number of regular farm workers. They are leaving the land at a rate of about 15,000 a year. Most of them have so far been absorbed into the building industry or industry in the nearest towns but employment there has now reached saturation point. There is a desperate need in some rural areas and small market towns for the provision of light industry to take up these men who are now losing their jobs in agriculture. I hope that the Government will provide light industry in such areas to give work for them.
    We all welcome the proposals—if they mean anything—for greater expenditure on hospital buildings, on houses, on better roads and on education. Although we want more universities, I hope that if they are to be built it will not be done at the expense of the village primary schools, many of which are in a shocking condition. The hon. Member for The Wrekin may smile; he has been telling us of the wonderful new school he has got, but he should come to Norfolk and see some of our old ones. I am glad that the Minister of Education is coming to see some of our relics, and I hope that we shall get more money to replace these village monstrosities.
    I regret the lack of any proposal in the Gracious Speech to increase pensions for widows and the old, and to increase sickness and unemployment pay. I feel very strongly about this state of affairs, particularly at this time of year—Members opposite boast of the affluent society, but the people of whom I speak are the very people who helped to create our society, whether affluent or not. They should get a fair share of the cake, but those of us who see these people in their own homes have to admit that they are just not getting that fair share. I hope that even if it is a vote catcher before the next General Election some proposal will be made to increase these benefits. I have had personal experience of the pittance received in unemployment pay, and I feel just as strongly for those receiving it as I do for the sick, the retired and the old.
    9.4 p.m.
    Mr. Llywelyn Williams: Every hon. Member representing a Welsh constituency will deprecate as strongly as I the complete omission of any reference to Wales in the Queen's Speech. The people of Wales will note that omission, and next year an electoral price will have to be paid for it by the Conservative Party.
    There is no mention of leasehold reform. This affects areas in England, but is obviously a problem that very grievously affects parts of Wales, particularly South Wales. There are difficulties attached to it, but they are not insuperable, and I cannot believe that there can be any argument on the very first principle of leasehold enfranchisement as it affects owner-occupiers. However, as we have dealt with the subject so often in this House before, I shall not now dwell further on it.
    There is one aspect of the Queen's Speech with which I want to deal. It is the statement:
    "You will be invited to consider arrangements for the payment of compensation to the victims of crimes of violence."
    Reference was made to this very important point by the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald). I wish that he had paid the deference, which I think should be paid, to the strenuous efforts made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) in this connection. I am sure that this will have the general acceptance of the House.
    We have our National Insurance system to cover sickness, the Industrial Injuries Act to deal with accidents at work, burglaries are dealt with, by and large, by personal insurance, and compulsory third party insurance deals with motor accidents. But there is a small section of the populace which suffers grievously because there is no reparation made to them, particularly those who have been victims of crimes of violence.
    I should like to express my agreement with the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey who made a plea that when this new legislation is brought before the House it will be as comprehensive as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) referred to a case of injustice to a woman constituent of his. I want to refer to what happened
    286
    to a constituent of mine to show that there is a real sense of grievance in these matters.
    A constituent of mine was going to work on his motor bicycle when he was hit by a lorry, driven by a person who had stolen it, and who had not a driving licence. My constituent was in hospital for two years. He lost all the earning capacity of two years, and, of course, received no compensation. The man had stolen the lorry, and with a complete sense of irresponsibility perpetrated this terrible thing. That is the type of case I am thinking of.
    A similar case occurred recently in Pontypool. It shows the incredible irresponsibility of a young person who had never even held a learner's driving licence. He stole a car, went to a dance, packed a car with youngsters, among whom was a young French student who was holidaying in this country and who accepted a lift in the car. This person, of course, ought never to have been near a road with a lethal vehicle like this. He could not take a bend, crashed into a wall and this poor girl was killed. I noticed in a newspaper only this week that he expressed his regret to the parents. What poor comfort for the parents. But there can be no financial compensation. I should like to think that this type of case will be borne in mind by the Government when they bring in this legislation.
    I want to deal with a question which is causing me a tremendous amount of concern. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) referred quite moderately, and I take no exception to the tone of his speech, to the question of relationships between the police and the public in Britain. I think that the police are having a rough deal. I want it to be known and to be on the record that I say that. I do not think that they are having a square deal from the Press or from some hon. Members on both sides of the House.
    We place the police in an impossible situation, and then sometimes their reactions are not of a perfect ethical standard. I know that some of these cases have been flagrant. The Sheffield case, in particular, left a nasty taste in the mouth of everybody, but I would ask tonight why we highlight these

    287
    exceptions. Why do we for ever refer to the way in which the police in some cases have used strong-arm methods and in other cases have put undue and unfair pressure on witnesses or suspects?
    I would draw attention to something which occurs every week in my constituency. Young men are brought before the courts in the Western Valley of Monmouthshire because of the way in which they have ill-treated the police. I feel strongly about this. My next-door neighbour, a young married policeman, a fine type of man and a local Baptist preacher, only a fortnight ago was dealing with two ruffians on the streets of Abertillery. They were using obscene language and were under the influence of drink. The young policeman was shockingly bruised and knocked about. I am ashamed of some of my constituents who did not lift a finger to help him in that crisis, and it is to the eternal credit of a frail little woman who came out of a car and pitched into these hooligans with her umbrella. Why do we not realise that when one is dealing with a drunk and a lout one cannot reason with him? If one wants to take him into a police station is one any wiser for saying. "Will you come quietly?" One is dealing with a person who is not amenable to reason. If he is held by the arm he is liable to launch out and kick and punch. Recruitment to our police staffs is not helped by continual sniping at them.
    The ordinary policeman does not want to be involved in these matters from personal predilection, but in doing his duty he is constantly involved in these circumstances in the valleys of South Wales and in the large towns of England and Wales. He can be pardoned if, starting with a reasonable amount of force, he goes further and uses what we would call stronger force to get these louts into the police station, and there follow the normal course of the law.
    We are leaning over backwards to try and see the point of view of the criminal. I say strongly that there is a war going on in Britain today. This may be a highly dramatic statement to make but there is a war going on between crooks and society. They have declared war on society. These crooks do not intend to
    288
    do anything except extract gain from hold-ups, train robberies and bank robberies, and in a war there are certain measures which can be justified which could not be justified in the more sequestered and quiet and restrained atmosphere of peace.
    I agree with Lord Shawcross in what he said the other day. I have made a short canvass today among lawyers in the House about the question of having examining magistrates. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich does not agree with the idea of examining magistrates as a system in this country similar to that employed on the Continent, but I think that the case has been made out. I know that there are dangers inherent in such a situation, but if our only reason for not accepting this type of system of taking evidence from crooks and criminals is that we have always done it in another way, then it is about time that that conservatism was abolished. We must be prepared to adopt new methods to deal with new circumstances.
    We should take all possible steps to bring this war to an end. I can see nothing funny at all in this. I was aghast at the strange twist in the British mentality over the train robbery. What is funny about £2 million being stolen? Why should we always side with the people who succeed in these nefarious activities?
    For all these reasons, I hope that in any changes which may take place in police administration the Government will have the backing of this House, as I am certain they will have the backing of the vast majority of the people.
    9.16 p.m.
    Mr. John Bitten: I very much enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. LI. Williams) and I agree with him that there is a new sophisticated kind of criminal operating today. The public are all too easily inclined to take a sloppy and sentimental attitude to the kind of criminal who has developed and seems still to be developing. I very much welcome the speech—particularly, if I may say so without becoming controversial, as it comes from the opposite side of the House. In saying that, I appreciate that the hon. Member has the support of many of his hon. Friends.

    289
    I did not intend to participate in this debate and therefore, as a sign of crude affluence, I have scribbled a few notes on the back of my cheque book. I should like to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) who, like myself, has the privilege of representing what is substantially an agricultural constituency. I hope I understood the exchange that took place between him and my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) about the consequences of some kind of planning of import controls and the effect this would have on producer prices of food. I think my hon. Friend used the words "better prices"; I think he meant "increased prices". There was some head shaking. Indeed, there is now some head shaking from the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West, and this I find encouraging. I noticed that these remarks were met by a stony disregard by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) who doubtless, representing the co-operative interests, may not be entirely at one with his hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West on the future of the Labour Party's agricultural policies.
    I am delighted that the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West has clearly and unequivocally made that statement, because T believe it is one of the consequences of a policy of import control whereby one is going to keep out of the market dumped products, not least because although one may have fractionally, in terms of the housewife, obtained some benefit from the dumpings, it has been nothing like the benefits that one might have expected from taking cheap imports.
    Mr. Hilton: What I was referring to were increased prices to the producer.
    Sir C. Osborne: There cannot be increased prices for the producer unless the consumer pays for those increased prices.
    Mr, Speaker: Order. Double interventions in a speech are unfair to the hon. Member who is speaking and result in confusion of debate.
    Mr. Biffen: I am sorry if I have caused confusion to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and to the hon.
    290
    Member for Norfolk, South-West. I suspect that I may also have caused confusion to hon. Members opposite some of whom represent agricultural interests and others of whom represent the interests of the co-operative societies.
    May I turn to another point arising from the Gracious Speech concerning agriculture? I should like to register my disappointment that in the reference to some kind of regulation and control of imports no mention was made of dairy products. I know that there is already a quota system governing butter, but I should like whoever is to answer these points at some stage in the debate to give us an assurance about Government policy regarding dried milk and other forms of dairy produce, particularly cheese, the dumping of which has caused concern to both the Milk Marketing Board and many dairy producers.
    Again, following the speech of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West, I refer with satisfaction to the suggestion that there may be legislation about severance pay. I think that the hon. Gentleman spoke of increased social benefits, and I am not sure that I followed him there because I take it that these could have considerable inflationary consequences, depending upon the size of the increases he envisages. However, if there is some kind of impasse among employers, the unions and the various other people who should be consulted before a policy for severance payments is introduced, a very acceptable short-term alternative, I believe, would be an increase in unemployment benefit.
    I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman that, in the context of regional development, which, we understand, is to be a feature of Parliamentary activity this Session, consideration should be given to rural areas which themselves will inevitably have to accept the consequences of a changing employment pattern in agriculture. Even with its high level of productive efficiency, agriculture will almost inevitably tend to employ a smaller labour force. This is a trend which has continued since the end of the war and is likely to go on still further.
    In the circumstances, I hope that the desire of many small market towns to industrialise themselves on a limited

    291
    scale will not De frustrated by an almost obsessive preoccupation in Government Departments with thoughts of certain specific parts of the country such as the North-East, Scotland and Merseyside. I say this fully conscious that such wildly controversial remarks will bring hon Members from those areas breathing hotly upon my neck.
    Mr. E. Fernyhough: Too true.
    Mr. Biffen: I notice that the attack has already started.
    I can think of one case affecting my own constituency. There is a company there which makes agricultural products and which, on the whole, wishes to turn for its labour force to an agricultural area. It markets in an area which, substantially, is bounded on the north by Liverpool and on the south by Birmingham. It is totally unrealistic to think of sending this company to Jarrow.
    In my view, the whole Government approach in the past to industrial development certificates has been far too narrow. I hope that, as a result of a broader approach to regional development, small market towns which are successful in attracting small industries to help them in anticipating changing conditions will not have their plans frustrated. After all, this is the whole point of intelligent and thoughtful social planning. One tries to anticipate changes in employment patterns. If the drive and initiative of the local authority, councillors, industrial development associations and others in an area are successful in attracting industrialists, it really is the height of frustration for them to find that someone in Whitehall says "Thou shalt not", because the company on which they had set their hopes is intended to go to Merseyside. Indeed, I would not mind betting 10 to one that, in fact, the company will never be browbeaten by Whitehall into going to Merseyside.
    I have referred specifically to the problem facing Market Drayton. I referred to it in a speech I made during the last Budget debate, and I was totally unsatisfied with the consequences of what I then said. I hope that what I have said now, none the less vigorously, will have a happier outcome.
    292
    I conclude with a comment on the general theme of the Gracious Speech, expansion without inflation. This is a very honourable and noble aim and I do not suppose that many hon. Members will cavil or quarrel with it. A few remnants of the Gladstonian elements of the Tory Party like myself and possibly my hon. Friend the Member for Louth who feel that inflation is a fearful thing are inclined to view all these slogans with a certain degree of reserve. I say this knowing that I am liable to cause a certain amount of controversy, not least possibly on the benches behind me, but I am not entirely happy at the fairly confident way in which the Treasury Bench appears to accept the very considerable rise in public expenditure, particularly in what one might call public capital expenditure, over the next couple of years, especially in view of the F.B.I. Report which has come out today suggesting that we shall be running into a private capital expenditure boom in 1964.
    Is it really confidently felt by the Treasury that the economy will be able to take the full impact of a private capital investment boom on top of the existing level of planned Government expenditure in the coming 12 or 18 months, because we are told that the whole Government programme rests on the N.E.D.C. plan for a 4 per cent, growth which in turn depends on the proposition that we can very considerably increase our exports? I readily admit that there has been considerable success in this respect, but I am not entirely happy about the balance of payments situation if, as seems likely, we shall be moving into a stock building situation at a time when the terms of trade are moving against us.
    I am sorry to ask what may seem to be a querulous question, particularly at this stage of the Session, but I should like to know how confident the Government are that the export momentum can be sustained, particularly if the Western European markets show signs of slowing up their rates of expansion. I should also like again to press the question as to whether one can constantly disregard the fact that the planned increase in imports is being considerably exceeded at present, according to N.E.D.C.

    293
    These are doubts which lurk in my mind and I make no apology for expressing them now. However, having said all that, this is a Gracious Speech which sets before Parliament months of hard work. I certainly do not accept the view that this is to be an electioneering Parliament. If that is believed by the country it will reflect equally on both sides of the House. It will be neither one party nor the other which will gain. It will be the House of Commons and its standing in the country which will lose.
    9.28 p.m.
    Mr, Kenneth Robinson: I have sought to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, in order to raise one specific action of the Government. However, before I do that I wish to make two general observations. The first refers to the whole tenor of the Gracious Speech and the flood of half-promises and half-commitments which emerge every time that the Prime Minister seems to make a policy speech—and that is not an infrequent occurrence. One must ask, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked yesterday and as the nation is beginning to ask, why it is that all these good things have suddenly become possible when so many far more modest advances have proved impossible during the last twelve years of Tory Government.
    The Prime Minister and the Government remind me irresistibly of those traders who, seeing their sales falling, have just discovered the virtues of trading stamps, because all the measures and promises which we have before us are intended to appeal to a gullible public and to give them exactly the same illusion which trading stamps are designed to create, namely, that they are getting something for nothing.
    The answer is simple and straightforward. It was given by my right hon. Friend the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition this afternoon. All this is not serious policy-making at all, but is desperately irresponsible electioneering. When the election comes, we on this side will look forward to seeing the party opposite marching into battle under the banner of the green shield.
    My other general remark concerns the speech yesterday of the Prime Minister. Unlike most of my hon.
    294
    Friends and, I think, the whole of the Press, I was less disturbed by that part of the Prime Minister's speech dealing with home and economic affairs than with the part dealing with foreign affairs and particularly with East-West relations, Kremlinologists frighten me and amateur Kremlinologists terrify me. At least, the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) never made any pretence at being a Kremlinologist. He brought to his dealings with Mr. Khrushchev an empirical approach which from time to time produced dividends.
    Now, however, the new Prime Minister, on the strength of a course of Marxist reading twenty years ago, clearly sees himself as an expert in Soviet philosophy. This worries me not a little. It is rather like a layman administering a course of psychoanalysis to a patient on the strength of having read Freud's "Interpretation of Dreams" in his youth. It is slightly more dangerous than that. I found the Prime Minister's references to Mr. Khrushchev and the policies and philosophy of the Soviet Government unsophisticated to the point of naivety. I believe that Soviet policy is far more subtle and complex than the Prime Minister imagines, or, at least, appears to imagine. I only' hope for all our sakes that the right hon. Gentleman does not play his hunches too far.
    The main point which I wish to raise this evening is linked with the passage in the Gracious Speech which talks of
    "the provision of a modem transport system by all appropriate means, including planning …"
    My protest is directed to the Ministers of Transport and Housing and Local Government for their wholly misconceived and disastrous decision, announced after many months' delay halfway through the long Recess, to reject Sir William Holford's plan for the redevelopment of Piccadilly Circus.
    I should like briefly to recall the history of this matter as it affects this House, because I was, I believe, the first person to raise it here. There was a proposal by a developer, Mr. Jack Cotton, to erect on the Monico site a building which was not only architecturally hideous in itself, but which would have made nonsense of any

    295
    attempt to produce a comprehensive development of the Piccadilly Circus site.
    I was by no means alone in protesting at that time. I was supported by a number of my hon. Friends and I remember the late Aneurin Bevan, in what must have been almost his last intervention in this House before his illness, supporting me at the Dispatch Box. There was protest in another place and also among some of the dissidents at County Hall. Some credit for the then happy outcome is due to the present Home Secretary, then Minister of Housing, who wisely bowed to the gale of opposition which grew up against the scheme, and he called in the application. At the public inquiry, the Civic Trust was the principal objector on behalf of the public, and the plan was quashed.
    Up to that point, the whole operation was a very satisfactory exercise in Parliamentary pressure and control over the Executive, but we were only just in time. As the result of this, with the then Minister's approval, the London County Council invited Sir William Holford to produce a comprehensive scheme for the whole redevelopment of Piccadilly Circus, to which all future developers would be required to conform. Sir William produced a plan which I think was generally regarded as a most imaginative and even exciting plan, which in due course found its way to the Minister of Housing and Local Government and to the Minister of Transport for their approval.
    Of this plan I should like to quote some rather felicitous words which The Times used:
    "Its author saw the Circus as something more than a major traffic intersection bordered by valuable commercial sites: he saw it as a place of shops, theatres, and cafes, a place of concourse where people could meet, stroll, talk, gape, idle, look about them, fool around, and enjoy at leisure the endless variety of the metropolitan scene, without for ever blocking each other on narrow pavements or scuttling underground to seek refuge from the traffic."
    In short, it was to be a place where people could enjoy themselves on foot. I would remind the Government that people still do walk. Indeed, some of us, doubtless acutely eccentric, do not even own motor cars.
    296
    On 2nd September this year this plan was rejected by the two Ministers concerned, and it was rejected on the quite monstrous ground that it made insufficient provision for motor traffic. Sir William, with, I think, the greatest ingenuity and, I would guess, with the greatest reluctance, had provided for a circulation of about 5,000 vehicles for each hour of daylight. The Minister of Transport says, "You can take the plan back and recast it and provide for 7,000 vehicles for each hour of daylight." It is quite obvious to all concerned that this cannot be done without wrecking the essential features of this plan.
    But why only 7,000? Is it thought that the traffic flow is going to stop at that figure? Because the demands of the motor car today are quite insatiable. They are governed by a kind of Parkinson's law. Indeed, I think I may claim to call it Robinson's law, which reads that "Urban traffic expands to choke any increase in road capacity."
    I should like to ask, why has every amenity now got to be sacrificed to the demands of the motor car? When is some Minister of Transport going to have the courage to take steps to restrict urban vehicular traffic, at least in metropolitan areas like Piccadilly? I believe that when we get the Buchanan report it will not seek to avoid placing some restriction on traffic in urban areas. There is an excellent precedent, announced recently for the Mersey Tunnel, which is to be limited to four traffic lanes, and I assume that there will be some restriction of traffic at some future date.
    Here everything points to the fact that this Minister wants to see London finish up like Los Angeles. Los Angeles is the one city, which I know, at any rate, where everything has been sacrificed to the motor car, where they have got 12-lane highways, multiple clover-leaf intersections, three-dimensional road planning, the whole thing swallowing up enormous tracts of urban land. It has produced two results. The first is that twice every day the whole system snarls up solid. The second result is that Los Angeles today is the most hideous, the most sprawling, the most nightmarish city on earth, and that is where we shall get unless some Minister of Transport has the courage to do something about motor traffic in this country.

    297
    I know the Minister has done something to improve the flow of traffic in central London. He has introduced some one-way schemes, of which some have been successful, and some have been less successful, but the price has been paid by the pedestrian. No longer is it any pleasure to stop to shop, and walking in the West End of London today is a very dangerous nightmare. The pedestrian is shepherded by iron railings, and is plunged down subways, and asked to cross the roads at inconvenient places, and is forced into long detours. I believe that it is about time that the pedestrian came back into his own.
    The decision about Piccadilly Circus is, in my view, the result of a policy of wholly distorted and wrong-headed priorities. It is the very negation of planning. I hope that the Government will reconsider their decision and reverse it. I hope that they will allow the London County Council at long last, because the scheme has been very long delayed, to get ahead with building a kind of Piccadilly Circus which is worthy of the architectural and planning genius in which we in this country are very rich. If they fail to do that, it will merely confirm our suspicion that whatever the present Government may say about planning, they do not even understand its first principles.
    9.41 p.m.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) always talks so calmly and persuasively that one is almost wooed and seduced by his words. Nevertheless, I think there is a case for the planning of town centres for road traffic. The alternative is a stark one—prohibition of cars, certainly from the point of view of their going into the centre of cities, and eventually, perhaps, preventing certain people from owning cars. This is something which will require a very great deal of examination before being put into operation.
    I agree that the alternative is often hideous, involving multi-laned traffic going in and out. Los Angeles is probably a good example of this. But we must live with the motor car and with the idea of trying to cope with an expanding motor car population. Apparently, we are now visualising the time when every family will have a car,
    298
    and even the time when many families will have two cars. I am sure that, whichever Government is in power, this will be an increasingly difficult problem as the years go by. There is no easy solution to it. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has tackled the problem realistically. He has had a great deal of abuse from some quarters. Nevertheless, I am sure that he has done a good job and quite apart from any political content, I believe that he enjoys the support of most thinking people in the House and outside.
    I disagree with the hon. Member's remarks about "Kremlinitis". The hon. Member often makes remarks which I support, but I believe that on this occasion he is off the beam. I believe that the Prime Minister has a very sharp and shrewd appraisal of the Russian mind, and I believe that his interpretation of the way things are likely to plan out is nearer the mark than the opinions of many other people on the subject. I am sure that he is in no way jingoistic about it. He believes that we have to live and let live, even though we have different ideologies as between the West and the East. We must always be aware of the fact that so far this has not led to war, and we must play the ball accordingly. I believe that Mr. Khrushchev and the Americans realise this. This is one of the reasons why I believe fundamentally, that we must retain our independent deterrent—a point with which I shall deal more fully a little later.
    I disagree with the hon. Gentleman opposite on the question of the seriousness of the Gracious Speech. Whether it is described as a serious policymaking speech or an electioneering one, I welcome it as a progressive and forward-looking programme. It has been, generally speaking, well received in the Press. It is more like the programme for the first Session of a new Parliament than that for the last Session of an old Parliament. I take some comfort from this. Unlike some hon. Members opposite, I do not stand here believing pessimistically that we shall have a spate of Labour rule following the end of this Parliament.
    I think that advances are now possible in our economy because of the achievements of the Government over the last

    299
    two years. I want to deal with two particular aspects tonight. Perhaps they are slightly insular, but they affect me and my constituency and the whole of the London area. But first I want to say a word about modernisation. Surely modernisation has continued right from the start of time. All the way through the centuries we have been modernising this country, and the same thing has been happening in other countries. We have had enormous spurts in modernisation because, unhappily, of the two major world wars which occurred in this century. We are now reaching the stage, generally speaking, where the question of modernisation is occupying the minds of many people and the country will benefit from this in the long run. We shall not require the impetus of war in order to modernise. Having prepared our position, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, I am quite certain that we are now able to go forward and I look to an increasing awareness on the part of all political parties over the question of modernisation in our everyday life.
    I believe that people accept the idea of modernisation and that they also appreciate the difficulties. Although hard things are sometimes said about the electorate—that they are selfish and think only of themselves—I believe that we are reaching a stage where people would be willing to make sacrifices in order to achieve modernisation. I am sure that the ideas and the plans of the Government are appreciated by the electorate and that as we carry them through during the next few months we shall be judged—as we have been in the past—upon our record.
    I am sure that the majority of the people in this country—despite what has been said to the contrary, particularly from the benches opposite—believe in our independent deterrent and that its possession enables us to join in the councils of the world where otherwise we should not have been able to play a part. One can argue whether or not we have an effective first strike weapon and whether our second strike weapon is credible. I was surprised that in what was admittedly a brilliant speech, the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown)—[HON. MEM-
    300
    BERS: "Hear, hear."]—Well, one must give credit where credit is due. I do not agree with all that the right hon. Gentleman said. But he put it over extremely well. A good speech is not necessarily a worthy speech. But the right hon. Gentleman put it over extremely well.
    I was surprised to hear him say that if the Labour Party won the next General Election the resulting Labour Government would almost certainly retain the V-bomber force. Yet, according to the general tenor of his remarks, the right hon. Gentleman indicated that the V-bomber force was irrelevant. If that is so, why should a Labour Government be prepared to hang on to it?
    I believe that the majority of people in the country consider that the Polaris submarine would be a credible instrument of war. The remarks of the right hon. Member for Belper indicated that he did not think that it would be very effective and that, anyway, it was completely under American domination; that we should have little say in its control and that probably in due course we should abandon it. The right hon. Gentleman did not commit himself, but said that a Labour Government would examine the position.
    I believe that the people of this country are of the opinion that we benefit from having an independent force even though there is an amount of interdependence about our alliance with America. But it is important and still gives us a standing in the world. We know that there are many vital negotiations to be undertaken regarding the future, and I am certain that most people do not want to see this country in a position which would make us inferior to de Gaulle and the French, who will have their own independent weapon at a time when, if the party opposite comes to power, we shall not.
    Mr. G. W. Reynolds: The hon. Member has praised the Prime Minister for his statement and he has supported the idea of the TSR2, which involves an amount of £300 million or £500 million, and the Polaris submarine, involving sums of £200 million or £300 million. Can he explain how we are to secure the cuts in defence

    301
    expenditure in the next year or two which were referred to by the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Smith: I am not a defence expert, but I think the Prime Minister would not make such a statement unless that were possible. I think a large number of economies can be made in the conventional field and also with some new weapons. Although there has been much comment about TSR2, I do not think it has been authoritatively stated that it will not be a credible weapon. I was surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Belper say that he did not think Polaris would be all that effective. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did not say that."] I am sorry if I misunderstood him, but that was the impression I gained.
    The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) has raised the question of expenditure, to which both political parties are pledged. They are pledged to spend more; there is no dispute about that. I and most hon. Members on this side of the House feel that if the Labour Party comes to power we shall have a certain amount of defence saving by their abandoning the independent deterrent..
    Mr. Richard Marsh: No.
    Mr. Smith: But we should then get expansion with inflation. If we had a strong incomes policy we would not get inflation. I believe that the price we pay at present is a heavy but a worthwhile one, which benefits the country and provides a very useful insurance policy.
    I do not wish to go on, however, with the theme of international relations and defence. I wish to turn to a bread and butter subject in which I am interested and which is mentioned in the Gracious Speech. I am sure that many hon. Members look forward to the introduction of a Bill to provide relief to certain householders who are suffering hardship from increased rates as a result of revaluation of their houses. Hon. Members may know that a number of colleagues and I were active during the last Session in trying to impress on the Minister of Housing and Local Government that something had to be done about rates. We are very pleased that something is to be done, for this is a very vexed question. I am pleased that there will be some relief of hardship before the
    302
    Allen Committee of inquiry into rating has reported. Many complaints and suggestions are being sent to that Committee, which is making an exhaustive study of the subject.
    The theme of the modernisation of Britain is an excellent one. I should have thought the rating system is something which has the greatest need for modernisation. It is out of date and extremely annoying to most people who have to pay, even though they realise that they have to meet their commitments. Although indisputably it is a burden which we must all carry if we are residents, there is an overwhelming case for a full examination of the rating system to see whether it can be reformed. We have heard in the last two days of growing expenditure. This poses a problem to whichever party is in power. It is becoming more and more urgent because a vast amount of revenue has to be raised by rates. The Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon talked about a 6 per cent, increase in education costs. We have not been told whether that will come straight from the Exchequer or if some of it is to be raised by local revenue. I maintain that higher education costs ought to be transferred to the national Exchequer. Many of my hon. Friends think the same.
    I hope very much that the Chancellor and his financial advisers will look at the matter again, particularly as we are getting under way with the increased educational drive and spending more and more money on it. The rate at present is about £1,000 million a year. This will go up steadily when we implement the Robbins Report and continue the drive for new and better schools, particularly in some of the poorer country areas which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Norfolk, Southwest (Mr. Hilton). It is time we did something about transferring some of the burden of local taxation to the national Exchequer.
    It is agreed that local government should always aim at providing value for money. Ratepayers must feel that they are part of a service and that they are not isolated unfortunates mulcted at every turn. The householder today whether big or small feels that he is paying an undue amount towards local revenue resources compared with others.

    303
    Another fault in local government is that too much financial responsibility is attached to a local authority for things which are not of local concern. Having served on a local authority, I know that one is hamstrung right, left and centre, and however hard one tries to economise it is difficult to do so because directions come from Whitehall and there is no room for manoeuvre. I hope that the rating difficulties will be examined very carefully by my right hon. Friend, particularly in the light of the legislation which he proposes to introduce.
    Another aspect of the Gracious Speech which very much affects people living in London was mentioned by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson). It is the question of a modern transport system. Naturally, I welcome the statement that
    "by all appropriate means, including planning, investment and research",
    the Government will go ahead with the modernisation of our transport system. I believe that they have made a realistic start to this with the Beeching proposals. There is a great deal of controversy about them throughout the country, particularly where branch lines are to be closed, but I think that this is a realistic approach and that provided we get our alternative means of transport right, we shall have a highly up-to-date and modern transport system.
    But there is one sector of the country in which the transport system is beginning to founder, and that is not very far from Westminster. I refer to the London Transport system. I have lived in London for the last fourteen or fifteen years and during the whole of that time, in my personal experience and that no doubt of every hon. Member, fares have risen consistently and the service, particularly the bus service, continues to deteriorate. I wonder how much longer we, in the largest and greatest city in the world, can tolerate a bus service which now operates so inefficiently and fitfully.
    Mr. Douglas Jay: The busmen are underpaid.
    Mr. Smith: I agree with the right hon. Member that they are underpaid. I am coming to that. Complaints from constituents reach me, as they do hon.
    304
    Members on both sides of the House. I receive pathetic letters from people who have to wait in the rain sometimes for an hour or so because bus crews have not turned up for duty. I know of teenagers who have had to move away from home into the centre of London because they can no longer get to work on time as a result of the fact that buses do not turn up and there is no alternative means of transport. Not everybody owns a car. Indeed, if everybody owned a car and drove to London in it, we should soon have chaos.
    The replies which we receive from London Transport are very polite but quite unconvincing and very stereotyped. We have a real grievance in the London area and something must be done about it. I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport that we should have a full inquiry into the whole London Transport system. Undoubtedly this is not a one-sided business. The hon. Gentleman said that these men are underpaid. They probably are, and they may well feel that they have a grievance—and it must be looked into just as the whole management of London Transport must be looked into. We must be satisfied that management is efficient and that operating techniques are up to date—this I very much doubt—and that the role of the unions and the employees is a good one.
    I think that the men and women who work for London Transport deserve more money, and in return for more money the public deserves more efficiency from both the men and the authority. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will consider this matter and will go into it in detail. Most Londoners, I am certain, will back him up in what he proposes to do.
    These are perhaps not very important Measures in the Gracious Speech. Nevertheless, they affect thousands upon thousands of people and it is important that we should give our attention to them. One point which I wish to mention—because I was connected with it—is that I am sorry that there is no mention in the Gracious Speech of an amendment of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881-I very much hope that this matter is still under urgent consideration by the Commonwealth Relations Office and that in

    305
    due course my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary will do something about it, because I am sure that that is the general wish of the whole House, irrespective of party differences.
    In my view the Gracious Speech is a sound and relevant speech. I think that the Government's record is also sound and relevant. Despite all the taunts which the Opposition may justifiably make as party points—it is their prerogative as the Opposition—and despite the hostility of some sections of the Press, I believe that the Government's record is a fine and worthy record. I hope that I have not been too political in my remarks. Many hon. Members have been extremely political.
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

  WELSH LANGUAGE BOOKS (GRANT)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.']
  10.0 p.m.
  Mr. W. G. Morgan: After the wide range of subjects that the House has been discussing today it may appear to many that the subject which I am privileged to raise in this Adjournment debate is one of rather limited importance; but it is of great importance to hundreds of thousands of people in the Principality of Wales. The matter which I wish to raise tonight is that of Treasury support for publications in the Welsh language. I am very grateful that, although this is a matter which substantially affects the Treasury, the Government are represented tonight by no less a person than my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs. I am particularly glad that this is so because I have had a certain amount of correspondence with him upon the subject. I think that the issue between us is well known to us both. I hope that after tonight there will be no issue.
  It is not the first time that this important matter has been raised in the House by way of an Adjournment debate. It was the subject of a debate
  306
  in the early hours of the morning of 2nd May, 1961, the instigator of the debate being the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). The hon. Gentleman made a most excellent speech. I do not hope to equal the eloquence he then showed. The matter has been further raised by way of Questions by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). All this serves to show that this is a matter concerning Welsh Members on both sides of the House.
  Since the subject of tonight's debate is specifically Treasury support for publications in the Welsh language, I must of necessity direct most of my remarks to the financial issues. It is not irrelevant for me to point out in opening that we Welsh have been fighting to preserve our nationhood for a very long time, and our language is a very important facet of our nationhood. Looking back over the centuries, I think that the remarkable thing is not that the speaking of the Welsh language has gradually declined, but that it has survived at all bearing in mind the impact of its mighty neighbour the English language, a world language with all the media of the Press, radio and television at its command. It is a truism that unless we have a living language a literature cannot survive. The converse is also true. A language without a literature—by that I mean a literature that is constantly being added to and expanded—is doomed to extinction.
  I should like at this stage to say a few words about what has been achieved up to the present and to pay tribute to three categories of persons for what they have done already—first, to the publishers of Welsh books; secondly, to the University of Wales Press Board; and, thirdly, to the Government. I should have liked to have been able to put the Government higher on the list, because they have done a lot. Frankly, I am rather disappointed with their present attitude and for the moment at any rate my praise of the Government in this respect must be muted. I hope that I shall have reason to take a kindlier view at the end of this debate.
  As to the publishers of Welsh books, it is perfectly right to say that for very many years now their work has been

  307
  inspired primarily by devotion to the Welsh language—indeed, one might say solely by devotion to the Welsh language. They realise that if they ceased to publish they would sound the death-knell of the Welsh literary language. In consequence of this, they more often than not produce Welsh books at great sacrifice to themselves. They keep themselves in business solely through their general publishing work. Indeed, to put the matter in a nutshell, for many years they have consistently published Welsh books at a loss. They have subsidised these publications from other activities.
  This is not a new experience to us in Wales. We are proud that we are the only nation in the world with a university founded by the people and sustained in its early years by the pennies of the poor.
  Nearly a century ago the well-known Victorian Welsh publisher, Thomas Gee, of Denbigh, risked £20,000 to publish an encyclopaedia in the Welsh language. That amount was no mean sum in those days, nor is it today. He took the risk and his venture was a success. At that time there was a reasonable chance of making the venture pay, which it did, because the appeal of his publication was to a nation where the native language was, I believe, still spoken by the majority of the people and where there were fewer distractions than there are today.
  Today the position is infinitely more difficult, not only because of the decline in the number of speakers of the Welsh language but because the huge majority of those who speak the Welsh language are fully bilingual, which they were not when Thomas Gee published his encyclopaedia. Naturally one realises the tremendous impact of the English language through the various means of communication which I have mentioned.
  All that the Welsh publishers are asking is that the Government should give them a measure of security over a reasonable period in the future and, secondly, that they should be enabled by Government support to publish works in the Welsh language without suffering loss through doing so, even if they cannot make a profit—though it seems not
  308
  unreasonable to expect them to make a small profit. This seems a reasonable request.
  I paid tribute earlier to the work of the University of Wales Press Board, and before dealing with the contribution of the Government I should like to express my appreciation of the work the Press Board does in considering applications for Government grants and determining the amount of those grants without claiming one penny for the work it does.
  As to the Government's contribution, I do not think I exaggerate the case when I say that up to now they deserve every compliment for the assistance they have given. Ministers for Welsh Affairs have without exception given Welsh publishers a sympathetic hearing. More important—and I have particularly in mind my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary, who was for many years Minister for Welsh Affairs—they have given practical support in raising the annual grant for Welsh books by annual increments; from £1,000 in the past to its present figure of nearly £5,000. However, this sum is doomed to extinction in about twelve months' time unless something is done.
  Were it not for the assistance that has been given by the Government the few existing publishers in the Welsh language would not have been able to survive the ever-increasing production costs. There is no doubt that the improvement in the grant has increased the number of books published for adult readers and it is fair to say that never has so little public money achieved so much public good as has this grant.
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend will not mind if I mention again the fact that he and I have had correspondence about the future of the grant, particularly since this is the matter which concerns us most tonight. During this correspondence he has emphasised two points. I do not propose to disagree with them, so far as they go. He has pointed out that the grant has always been regarded as terminable and that it is not merely a question of shortage of Government money, because it is desirable that the Welsh publishing industry should stand on its own feet as soon as possible.
  I am sure that I speak for all Welsh publishers and all who are interested in

  309
  Welsh publications when I say that they are anxious that the industry should become economically viable as soon as possible. They do not ask for charity in the form of a permanent dole from the Treasury. They ask only for a reasonable measure of support in carrying out what is, after all, a great service to Wales and the Welsh nation. I think I am interpreting my right hon. Friend aright when I say that he said that it would be wrong to conclude now that the industry will not be in a sufficiently strong position and able to support itself by 1965.
  I am afraid that it is on that issue that I must part company with him. I should not like to think that my right hon. Friend is unsympathetic—I am sure that he is not. I prefer to believe that in this matter he is being rather un-realistically optimistic. I do not think that there is any ground for supposing that all will be well with Welsh-language publishing by 1965, and to my mind there has never been any real reason to suppose that that would be so. Indeed, it would be nothing short of miraculous if the payment of what is, after all, only a small grant for half a dozen years or so could of itself counteract the effect of 90 years of general education through the medium of the English language, together with the accompanying spread of newspapers and periodicals and radio and television broadcasting in that tongue. It is far too much to expect Welsh publishers to gain a new market and a new public all at once; one cannot look for a revival overnight.
  I should like my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that it is only in recent years that there has been a change of heart on the part of Governments and officialdom generally towards the teaching and use of the Welsh language. Only a little more than a century ago The Times saw fit to describe the Welsh language as "the curse of Wales", and I regret to say that the Victorian view expressed by the "Thunderer" in 1846 still persists in the minds of a few arrogant people.
  To put the matter quite frankly, I think that all parties represented in this House deserve some portion of blame for not taking measures to save the language when the task would have been appreciably less formidable than
  310
  it now is. But it is no use crying over spilt milk—we want to look to the future. I do not want my right hon. Friend to get the impression from what I have said that the position of the language has become hopeless, and that there is no point in doing anything about it. Although there has been a gradual decline in the number of Welsh speakers since the census of 1911—when, incidentally, they amounted to nearly 1 million—much of it has been due to emigration to England, where many of them have tried, and in cases have succeeded, to retain their Welsh nationality and language. It is right to say, too, that the small decline shown by the census figures between 1951 and 1961 was not as much as was expected, but the point is, because it relates to the future, that there are hopeful signs even in the anglicised areas of Wales that the new Welsh schools will point the way to a real bilingual culture in which the best of both languages will be preserved.
  Before I come to my hopeful suggestions for the future, which I hope my right hon. Friend will carefully consider, I should like to make one last point in favour of the publishers, because it is something that is not generally realised. The fact is that, and I do not criticise anyone for it, very few of them have ever received the grant for which they asked in respect of a particular book or title, even though, and this is important, they have to supply details of the costing of a publication when making their applications.
  I come now to my suggestions. Although it may sound rather a lot to ask for at the present time, I suggest that my right hon. Friend should increase the grant to a minimum of £10,000 a year and guarantee it for a period of 20 to 25 years. I do not consider either the sum I suggest or the period of time I suggest to be unreasonable, because not only have we, on the one hand, to give Welsh publishers security, but we have also to inculcate reading habits in Welsh in the younger generation, otherwise the money that has been expended may be entirely wasted. If my right hon. Friend does not care to pledge himself to that, I wonder whether he would at any rate consider the appointment of a small

  311
  committee of inquiry to consider the whole position in the very near future? There is no lack of matters which such a committee could consider—the size and method of distribution of the grant, the provision of Welsh textbooks, children's books, and so on.
  My final point is that it has not escaped notice in Wales that in the financial year 1962–63 the Government spent no less than £200,000 in sending low-priced English books overseas. I make no criticism of that—this expenditure was very necessary to enable English books to hold their own in foreign markets. We in Wales are modest people—we do not expect anything as generous—but we feel that the Government are under a moral obligation to do their utmost within reason to preserve one of the oldest living tongues, spoken within its jurisdiction, almost on its own doorstep, and, I am proud to say, by many Members of this House.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan) on raising this matter. I have to declare an interest because I am a director of a Welsh publishing firm, Gwasg Gee. The hon. Member referred to it as the oldest Welsh publishing company. Like my fellow directors, I am an unpaid director, but I can tell the Minister a fact which he already knows, I am sure, that the publishing of Welsh books normally does not pay. It is subsidised by old-established publishing companies from their other activities, generally their printing activities.
  One point which I should like the Minister particularly to bear in mind is that when we have English publishing and one publishes, for example, a fairly successful novel or a serious book in England and it is taken up by the public libraries, this is normally enough to make it a commercial success. On the other hand, if one publishes a Welsh book, whether a novel or a serious book, and it is taken up by the public libraries this is almost sufficient to ensure its failure, because if it is not purchased, or purchased to a very limited extent, or only by those libraries which provide Welsh books, this makes it a completely uneconomic proposition.
  312
  I do not know the number of public libraries in England, but it probably runs into several thousand. Therefore, if half of them buy a book and one has a circulation of about 2,000 copies, this normally would ensure that one would at least make a balance on one's costs. With Welsh publishing the position is quite different. We depend not only on publishing the books but on persuading people to buy them, rather than just get them from the library. This is why I think it is so important to have the kind of grant which the Government have given in the past and which I certainly hope will be increased.
  10.17 p.m.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for WelshAffairs (Sir Keith Joseph): My hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan) and I have corresponded a good bit about the subject of this debate, and I know that he is by no manner of means the only hon. Member who takes a deep interest in this subject. I was very grateful to him for his thoroughly deserved tribute to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for his constructive concern with the publishing of books in the Welsh language
  I cannot pretend to the same record as my right hon. Friend, but I, too, recognise, and have recognised since I have had any responsibility for Welsh affairs, that a living language and a living literature must support each other, and therefore the preoccupation with the survival of the spoken Welsh language must spill over strongly into a concern for the number of books, for adults as well as for children, for pleasure as well as for study, in the Welsh language.
  I should like to echo my hon. Friend's tribute to the Press Board of the University of Wales which gives an honorary service, an invidious as well as an honorary service, because it is invidious to pick and choose between different alternative ways of spending what is, after all, a limited sum of money. I think that we all owe them a great debt of gratitude.
  I think it only right also to pay some tribute to the publishing industry that concerns itself so generously and in such a dedicated way in many cases with the

  313
  publication, often at a loss, of Welsh books. Finally, there is a whole army of Welsh enthusiasts who are, by their purchasing and reading habits, I think beginning to show the sort of support that we all want to see; not enough yet but on a rising trend. There is, after all, a great deal of support for books published in Welsh.
  My hon. Friend scrupulously kept to the exact limitations of this debate—the Treasury support.
  But we all know that the Welsh Joint Education Committee and its specialist panels has a very enlightened scheme for the support of Welsh books, admittedly mainly text books and children's books, and we all know the admirable Five Counties scheme.
  I was sorry to hear the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) comment on the value of purchases by libraries. I realise that he was not deprecating them but was saying that, unlike the position in England, they were not enough on their own. I have read the interesting ideas of Mr. Alun Edwards for making the libraries in Wales some constructive basis for further support of Welsh books as the schools have already become. This is not my business. It is that of the Minister of Education but I mention these existing facets of enlightened support.
  There is the Welsh Books Council which has been in operation only some months but has already made itself felt by canalising contributions from a number of local authorities which themselves receive rate deficiency grants for their contributions, and which, as I quote from the Guardian last month, has distributed about £4,000 among 40 authors. The Welsh Books Council, as we all know, aims to support authors whereas the University of Wales Press Board distributes Treasury money among publishers.
  There is, therefore, quite a lot of support one way or another and I believe the figures show that there are a rising number of books published in the Welsh language. It was never intended that the support From the Treasury should go on for ever. My hon. Friend himself said that he always accepted that the annuity should be a terminable annuity. He rightly paid tribute to the fact that
  314
  the annuity has been a rising one, by £500 a year, and that as a result there has been a rising number of books supported by it. In 1962 there were fifty-one books, which is the highest number supported, published by twelve different publishers, and engrossing the £4,000 which is available. Every year, except one when there was a particular interference, there has been a rising trend in the number of books supported by the scheme which we are discussing.
  In the light of my hon. Friend's recognition that the support, to be healthy, must be terminable, otherwise we are putting the industry on some sort of dole, it is odd that he should have finished his speech by suggesting that there should be an increase in the grant to £10,000 and that this should continue for twenty-five years. This, in the terms we are discussing, would be a large and permanent dole, such as my hon. Friend said earlier would not be suitable for the industry. And it would be throwing in the sponge when there is a rising trend and increased prospects that the industry may well be more rewarding than is immediately recognised.
  I have little new to tell the House but perhaps there are two things which may not be generally known. The University of Wales Press Board makes a report. This is one of the conditions of the Treasury grant. It reports each year to the Minister for Welsh Affairs, but in order to avoid the invidious publication of details of its support it is a convention that the report is not published. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave a report to the House which was published in HANSARD in 1961. Therefore it would be possible, if there were a general desire for it, for me to bring that report up to date. It would not be a verbatim repetition of the University of Wales Press Board's report to me, but it would give figures which might be of interest to the House, and if there is a general desire for it I will follow that up.
  The Board has announced that it proposes next year, which is the penultimate year of the present grant scheme, to make a survey of the latest three years of its activities when it will have spent the largest sum of money in support of Welsh books. That survey will

  315
  be reported to the then Minister for Welsh Affairs. This will enable the then holder of that office to study it with the University of Wales Press Board, which is most closely and sympathetically associated with us, before the final termination of the present grant scheme. I hope that at that time the figures and the morale—if I may speak of morale in the industry—will be such as will make it seem sensible to wind up the scheme. I naturally hope, and I am sure hon. Members do, that by then the Welsh book industry will be seen to be on a healthy upward trend, even if not fully established as viable.
  My hon. Friend worried me a little, however, when he said that there was no need to wait that long because he could tell me now, on behalf of the publishers, that the scheme was nowhere within sight of being viable. That is not the impression that I got. I suggest that the most sensible thing to do is to wait and enable the Minister at the time to study the promised three-year survey by the University of Wales Press Board. But if the publishers of Welsh books feel that they have information that they would like to pass on to the Minister for Welsh Affairs, and if they would like to propose such a thing, I for one would be very glad to meet the Welsh publishers and discuss this matter. So that at an appropriate time, just before the University of Wales Press Board report reaches my Department, which I imagine will be towards the end of next year, the views of the Welsh publishers
  316
  will be known to the holder of this office.
  I put that forward as a possibly constructive suggestion so that before the termination of this scheme—I must emphasise that it is still the intention of the Government to bring the scheme to an end, as has always been undertaken, unless there is a strong reason shown to the contrary—what I am suggesting will make it possible for the views of all concerned to be known thoroughly by the Government before the final date.
  I have not gone in for a lot of figures. It is generally accepted that the trend of Welsh books published for adults is rising. I have reason to believe that the variety of Welsh books published for adults is healthy, and there is a mounting number of novels, essays, poetry and travel books—the sort of things that we would have wanted to see flourish to serve the Welsh culture.
  I am, therefore, glad to recognise that this short debate is not altogether a depressed debate. We recognise that the trend is healthy. The only question is whether viability is as close as 1965 or not. I suggest that it is sensible to await the Report, and I am willing to have a personal discussion with the Welsh publishers, if they think fit, somewhere about the middle of 1964. I am grateful to hon. Members for their interest in this subject which must serve the interests of Wales.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.

  EAST GERMANY
  EAST GERMANY
  CUBA AND HAITI (MEDICAL SUPPLIES)
  CUBA AND HAITI (MEDICAL SUPPLIES)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  30-Day Weather Forecasts
  30-Day Weather Forecasts
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Foreign Office Building
  Foreign Office Building
  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
TRANSPORT
  Traffic in Towns (Report)
  Traffic in Towns (Report)
TOBAGO
  Hurricane Damage (Aid)
  Hurricane Damage (Aid)
PAKISTAN
  Cyclone Damage (Aid)
  Cyclone Damage (Aid)

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

VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM
The Right Honourable John Hugh Hare, O.B.E., Honorary Lieutenant-Colonel in the Army, having been created Viscount Blakenham, of Little Blakenham in the County of Suffolk—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD NORMANBROOK
The Right Honourable Sir Norman Craven Brook, G.C.B., having been created Baron Normanbrook, of Chelsea in the County of London—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

JUDICIAL BUSINESS (APPELLATE COMMITTEES)
2.26 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, I do not think I need say much to your Lordships about the first Motion that stands in my name on the Order Paper. It is the usual Motion which is moved at the beginning of each new Session, and it has two objects. The first is to enable judicial appeals to your Lordships' House to be heard by an Appellate Committee. The second object is to enable the Appellate Committee to sit in two Divisions simultaneously and thus make expeditious progress with the judicial business in this House whenever the lists in the Judicial Committee happen to be light and noble Lords can be spared from sitting in that Committee.
Moved, That this House, in discharge of its constitutional duty to act as the ultimate tribunal in appeals from England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, orders that two Committees, each of which shall include all Lords qualified under Section 5 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876, as amended by any
30
subsequent enactment, be appointed to hear, during the present Session, such appeals as may be referred to them in order to secure the due expedition of public and judicial business; and that the Committees have leave to report to the House from time to time.—(The Lord Chancellor).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

JUDICIAL BUSINESS (APPEAL COMMITTEES)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR rose, to move, That all Lords qualified under section 5 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876, as amended by any subsequent enactment, be appointed such Committees as may be required to consider Petitions and other matters relating to Causes depending in this House and to Causes formerly depending in this House; and all other matters relating thereto; and that the Committees do appoint their own chairmen.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the second Motion which stands in my name is to make rather similar arrangements to those which I have already described in relation to the Appellate Committee. The difference between the two Motions is this. The first related to the Appellate Committee, which hears substantive appeals on your Lordships' behalf. The present Motion relates to the Appeal Committee, which is the body to be charged with hearing Petitions to this House for leave to appeal, in cases where the obtaining of such leave is a necessary preliminary to the hearing of an appeal. If the Appeal Committee refuse leave, then that effectively is the end of the matter. If, however, the Committee should grant leave to appeal, then the appeal will normally be brought before the Appellate Committee for hearing.
The only novel point about the present Motion to which I should draw your Lordships' attention is that it provides for the first time for the Appeal Committee to sit in more than one Division. This may be necessary in order to deal with Petitions without delay. During the course of the last Session there was an occasion when the number of Petitions then outstanding was such that it would

31
have been desirable for two Appeal Committees to sit simultaneously in order to deal with them. Moreover, it so happened that the state of business in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council at that time was slight enough for the necessary Law Lords to have been spared. Unfortunately, however, the terms of the Sessional Order which was passed this time last year setting up the Appeal Committee were too narrow to authorise the Committee to sit in two Divisions. It is for this reason that the Motion which is now before your Lordships has been drafted in the wider terms which I have described. My Lords I bee to move.
Moved, That all Lords qualified under section 5 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, as amended by any subsequent enactment, be appointed such Committees as may be required to consider Petitions and other matters relating to Causes depending in this House and to Causes formerly depending in this House; and all other matters relating thereto; and that the Committees do appoint their own chairmen.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LICENSING BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to the sale and supply of intoxicating liquor in England and Wales and to matters connected therewith; with corrections and improvements made under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949; and to move that the Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH
2.31 p.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion moved yesterday by Lord Tweedsmuir—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are to-day really opening a debate which will not only last to-day and to-morrow but be continued next week in three days of discussion on two Amendments which we propose to put down to the loyal Address. The speeches which the House will desire to make to-day and tomorrow will be many, and I hope that none of us will be too long in dealing with the general discussion of the gracious Speech from the Throne. In dealing with that, I should like to say that I am sure all Members of this House will wish to echo the sentiments of the Leader of the House yesterday in saying how much we desire to send our good wishes to Her Majesty and wish her to have good health and happiness in the event which she is expecting.
The debate yesterday in another place was much more prolonged than usual, and there were very important speeches by the Leader of the Opposition and by the new Prime Minister. I would say about the gracious Speech itself, as has been remarked by more than one Member of your Lordships' House, that it is unusually long. It is long, I suppose, because the Government have been preparing it for some time. Obviously, every item in it was well-known to the Cabinet and the Prime Minister before the recent election campaigns in Kinross and in Luton, and I feel just as strongly as I felt on October 24 that there was no real reason why the House should not have assembled on the original date fixed of October 29 and got on with

33
the business of the House, which we are warned now is going to be exceedingly full this Session. Moreover, we have not yet been able properly to discuss the Denning Report upon certain matters, a Report which we are all glad has resulted in clearing certain Ministers from the evil rumours that were going about and of which we have said nothing from this side of the House. But there are other points in regard to the Denning Report to which reference may have to be made. Because of the Prime Minister's illness, the Opposition, through Mr. Wilson, withdrew the suggestion of a special recalling of Parliament, but in all these circumstances we certainly ought not to have had the beginning of a final Session delayed until as late as yesterday.
This very long gracious Speech is clearly much more in the order of an election address than something which can be said to be the programme of the Government in a particular Session, and a Session which is not likely to be prolonged through the full course it usually occupies in a Parliamentary year. But I must say that between the end of October and November 7 the Government and its Press had a jolly good innings for getting the case put over. We were not surprised to hear from the Prime Minister on Monday last that the job of the Conservative membership now is never to forget that a General Election is coming, and that time, thought, study and almost every other function that they can control must be centred upon the General Election. More and more one begins to understand the reason for this. It is quite clear that after twelve years in office the Government are most anxious that their failures in those twelve years should not be brought before the public. If only they can get what the Prime Minister desires—no discussion about anything but how they see the future—then, of course, the electorate will not be fully informed as to what are the real consequences of the proposals, and what will be the likely result of the proposals in this gracious Speech.
The Queen's Speech itself contains many items which have been advocated long since by members of the working class, through their official political representatives. From that point of view, some of the proposals would, I
34
am sure, be welcome if they were going to be put into operation under the proper conditions. But when at the end of twelve years, we get a programme of this kind, with the enormously increased sum which will have to be spent if the Government are to achieve in respect of these items what they have failed to get going by stages in the last twelve years, then I say that the public ought to pay very special attention to the process that is going on.
The Prime Minister is a perfectly honest man, and so he has stated quite clearly what he wants: he wants to discuss only the future; what the Government intend for Britain in the future; what they want with regard to modernisation. The new term applied there is, I suppose, some tribute to the exposition on that whole question which was given at the Scarborough Labour Conference. It was a thorough shake-up for those who had been rather dilly-dallying about the matter for the last twelve years. But I must say that when one begins to think of that, one should bear in mind all the occasions on which we have put forward such a policy. In fact we were the first Party ever to put forward before a General Election a real book-type, fully worked out, policy for the future—not merely for the Party, but for the nation—and gradually this practice has come about.
I am reminded of what the spirit of the Tory Party really is when I come to recollect the speech of the new Foreign Secretary, Mr. R. A. Butler. We all sympathise with him in the disappointments he has had in his political life. But although he always speaks in a most friendly way when we meet, he made his position perfectly clear in the speech on the Saturday of the Black-pool Conservative Conference. Then he said: "Let us teach these Socialists a lesson. Let us see that we beat them again for a fourth time", when he dreamt, he said, that "there will be very little more heard of this thing, immature Socialism." Immature Socialism!—the policy of a Party which believes in planning and control which noble Lords opposite have scorned for nearly the whole period of their political life since the war but which in recent years they have been bound in some measure to adopt.

35
We had results from 1945 to 1950 which put the administration of this country far ahead of the administration of any other country which had suffered as we had done from the war, and especially from war damage. There never was a recovery to compare with it by way of progress. It was done by controls: controls of material, to a plan; controls of labour, to a plan. And by the end of 1951, when the Party opposite came into power, we had so far recovered that we were controlling 25 per cent. of the export trade of the world. This is "immature Socialism"! The Prime Minister announced with some pride last night that there was an increase in production of 8 per cent. in the coal mines—and here the appointment made by the Government opposite was of an immature Socialist. These are extraordinary statements to come from Mr. Butler.
Then he went on to try to teach us a lesson about democracy. What an amazing reflection of the Tory mind was that! He said that the Tories were democrats before Socialism was even heard of. Yes, he went back and selected Bolingbroke as an example. I cannot for the life of me yet understand whether he was thinking of Bolingbroke himself or of Sir Robert Walpole, but certainly Bolingbroke was a great intriguer. He wanted to get back, if he could, to a position where he could recall James III to the Throne without any reference to the Act of Settlement, but Sir Robert Walpole managed to defeat him in the end and the Hanovarian Monarchy was installed on the death of Queen Mary. This is a great example of the early knowledge of democracy by Tories, before Socialism was ever heard of—democracy in the eighteenth century; democracy at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the day of William Cobbett's Rural Rides, and the terrible state into which the Tory Government had got the people by deflating unduly the position of the peasant in this country; democracy in the nineteenth century, with the Dorchester labourers sentenced in a legal court in this country for daring to ask for more than 7s. a week, and being sent abroad; and only a great outcry by a few really well-thinking people managed to get this revised and have them returned. It was 1832 before
36
you got the abolition of that mockery of democracy the pocket boroughs, with class and interests and influence reigning in the country, and the people completely forgotten.
Mr. Butler went on to talk about the revelations of Hardwick, the great and famous actor, who talked about a visit with his father to the Black Country and the terrible conditions at the beginning of the nineteenth century. I just want to explain why Toryism is where it is to-day, and why they talk this way. Mr. Butler was proud of the fact that Mr. Hardwick reported what dreadful conditions there were at the beginning of the nineteenth century, on to the Boer War. When I look at the attitude of the Tory Party to democracy to-day, I must say that, if there is anything in this gracious Speech which is of any value at all, it has come from the long-organised pressure of the immature Socialists, the trade unions and the cooperators, many of them, and the Labour Party organisation. That is where it has come from; and you have been gradually forced into a social reform you did not want, and a social reform which the Tories in the early part of the nineteenth century voted again and again not to have. You have been pushed by the pressure of the people themselves through the gospel that we have been preaching.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, as the noble Earl has finished this history, will he not agree that he has read out a catalogue of the misdeeds of laissez faire Liberalism in the last century?
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: You can put them both together. I am not inclined to disagree with the interruption. We used to call both of them "Tweedledee and Tweedledum", and there is certainly not all that difference to-day. The real pressure has been coming from the basic people of the country, gradually, as they could get more of their citizenship recognised. I wanted to get that put straight in this House in view of the statement made at the Blackpool Conference, which was to lead you all to victory.
The next thing I want to say is this. We are not dealing with a new Government to-day. You have a new Prime Minister, but the Government is

37
practically unaltered since its reformation when the great turnout by Mr. Macmillan, the then Prime Minister, came about eighteen months or so ago. It is the same Government, with the same thoughts, the same ideas; and, in the meantime, for more than two years now, you have had nothing but a succession of messages from the electorate that your mandate is worn out. At by-election after by-election you have failed to maintain the position of your mandate. The way you are going on now, it seems to me that one of the main reasons for the legislation of last Session was to try to break finally, if you could, the power of Labour in the great metropolis. The reason for the new local government for Greater London is that you know perfectly well that the time of reckoning has now come; and the immediate situation for the Government is to put off the date of the General Election as far as possible, and to use all the enormous power behind them, with all their great money bags, to put up the great campaign posters in order to try to divert the attention of the general electorate from what their conduct has been for twelve years and on to this great programme for the future.
There is something else I want to say. The production of an Election address of this kind, with these great and enormous programmes, now, after twelve years, seems to lead to the need for the Government—and I am asking them to-day to do it—to produce a White Paper to Parliament showing what are the estimated costs of these programmes. I have already said that there are many items in the gracious Speech that we should welcome if they were properly applied and properly carried out. But whenever we have submitted a political programme to the electorate the Conservative Party have immediately asked, "What will it cost? How will you get the money?". What answer have we got now from the Prime Minister? The answer from the Prime Minister is, "Ah, we are in favour of a policy of growth; a policy of growth without inflation". Here is another point on which their record requires to be examined.
What sort of growth of production have we had, in relation to other countries, since we handed to them in 1951
38
the record about which I have spoken of our share of control of the world export trade? What sort of progress has there been? Over and over again we have had to point to the stagnation. Over and over again we have had to point to the proper remedies of investment at the right time in the right industries, and the proper controls that should be enforced in order to secure this steady growth that he now talks about.
But has there been inflation? I know that noble Lords will get up presently and say: "I think the Leader of the Opposition has said this before". Good things can always bear repeating, and this is an exposition of the failure of the Government. We have a Budget this year of well over £6,000 million. How much have you accomplished with that? How much growth, how much improvement here, there and everywhere? Over and over again we see the problems have piled up—some of which the Government no doubt have thought about in the preparation of the gracious Speech; maybe that is true. But why have they not done it before?
Let us take the not very long-established conversion of the Government to the need for planning and control. Let us take control first. The Government have actually been responsible since the Selwyn Lloyd Budget for pressing a policy of control of income. They were hesitant at first whether this control of income was to apply to anything but wages. But gradually they have had to come round to the idea of its including the control of income from profits as well. That is one control now necessary to secure the objective of this gracious Speech. Over and over again we on these Benches have asked for planning to be done, and to keep pace with the needs of the nation in a modern age. What sort of planning have the Government really done? The Government are trying to do it now with this programme.
I do not think the electorate are going to be deceived by it. I do not think they will believe a programme of this kind can be accomplished in a five or six month session in this Parliament, when the Government have had twelve years of public confidence before now in which to get it done, especially when one looks back at the way in which

39
Minister after Minister got up and declared, as they did in one case, that the country would go bankrupt in a year or two if they consented (as Mr. Wilson put it yesterday) to the increase of even a shilling or two a week to the nurses. One could also take the attitude of the Government with regard to education, all of which can be debated at greater length to-morrow and upon the Amendments next week. But the planning—why, it has been absolutely terrible in its lack of comprehensiveness and its failure to do the right thing.
I mention education, on which the Government are now going to spend about £3,500 million. This is a tremendous sum. There is the same thing with regard to defence—well, we shall come to it on Tuesday. So far as defence is concerned, we have a budget of £1,838 million this year; and the Minister of Defence has already stated that it will go up to £2,000 million, or he expects it will. What have we got for it? The minimum requirements of the ordinary Armed Forces cannot be filled at the present time, in the Army especially with regard to personnel, and in the other Services with regard to equipment. And the programme now proposed means that within a year or two there are going to be no limits at £2,000 million. Where has the Government's planning been? We will come to more details about that in the Defence debate next Tuesday.
Then we come to the question of housing. The exchanges yesterday in the House of Commons made me feel a little cross, I must say. There was an interruption and a suggestion that the housing figure during the time of the 1945–50 Parliament was less than that produced by the Conservatives, and the question was asked, "What else were they doing?" Every noble Lord on the opposite Benches knows in his heart that what was being done was the restoring of a bankrupt nation to activity. Lease-lend had ended and factories were being rebuilt. Houses were being repaired and more houses built. But how far behind is the present Government's housing programme? I will give an example. It was mentioned to us in another meeting yesterday. There has been the result at Luton of the feeling of the country in a prosperous
40
industrial area. Let me take another town. Take Slough, which to-day has over 1,500 unfilled vacancies for workers. The local council applied to the present Minister of Housing for permission to build 400 houses because they cannot get workers to the borough to fill the vacancies as there is no housing. Many of the people who have come into the borough are living in overcrowded and shocking conditions, and young married people cannot get housing accommodation. What has the Minister of Housing done in the last few weeks? He has cut down the application for 400 houses in that great borough to 245. What nonsense all this sort of thing makes when you come to deal with what has actually been done administratively to-day!
Take the planning which was so revealed during a televised debate the other night with regard to electric power. That was a very revealing thing. There was a complete misjudgment, which any Minister of Power ought to have been able to check from ordinary Government statistics and growth of population, and also the great increase in the number of electric gadgets. Now they have not been able to guarantee, after the experience of last winter, that even this winter there will not be reduced supplies of power to homes and factories if there should be another cold spell. Now they find that they will have to spend £165 million at least to begin to produce for five years ahead for the actual power requirements already established.
Criticism was made against the Labour Party on their planning. This Government have been without any really competent planning. That is why we are in the present situation. And what about those things which were not mentioned in the election address? There is not a single mention of the health services or about what is to be done in that respect. There is not a single mention of pensions or widows. There is no reference to these at all. There is no reference to the terrible increase in the difficulty of the social problem of housing arising from the fantastic exploitation of the price of land. We are faced now with the fantastic position that people have to pay from £4,500 to £5,000 for a house with two bedrooms, a bathroom and one large living room—largely because of the price of land and other inflations which

41
have occurred and the enormous profits which have been made.
Let us take another question of social cost. Why do the Government not say something in the Speech about hire purchase? We have had set up in the last twelve months a Council, under the chairmanship of that very well-qualified Peeress, Baroness Elliot of Harwood. We have not heard much from them yet—though I know that they have not yet had a great deal of time. But there is nothing in this Speech about consumers in general. Yet they are being exploited all over the country. The redevelopment, the centralised shopping and that sort of thing, is making a gradual increase in the use of the housewife as a beast of burden to carry her goods home. They have not all got cars, you know. There is all that kind of thing and there is nothing about it in the gracious Speech. The Consumer Council might have been asked to have a special look at a new exploitation: that of parasitical organisations which now try to persuade the housewife that she is making a profit by getting a gift as a result of a green or a black or a yellow or another coloured stamp. It is a shocking thing.
I said that I was not going to talk very long, and I will not do so. We shall have more to say in the course of the next two days' debate. Next week we shall have the Defence Amendment to discuss on Tuesday, and I am grateful to the official channels for the fact that we shall be able to have also two days' discussion of a more general Amendment covering social and industrial questions. There will then be far more opportunity to discuss these matters than we have to-day, when our speeches will be largely addressed to home affairs. In the meantime, I beg the House to remember that the present Government have no real live mandate at this moment. They have not changed just because there is a new Prime Minister, and I suggest that the best possible thing they could do is to go to the country now and not wait for still greater disaster to them.
3.1 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I do not intend to follow the noble Earl in so long and so wide a review of the gracious Speech. Before I begin the few remarks I am going to make, I would just say that it seems to me doubtful
42
whether James III may not have proved a more satisfactory monarch than George I or George II, who took his place. I am not sure, but I think that it is a point worth considering.
I should like to say a few words about housing. I am very pleased to see that all Parties are agreed that we need to have a great many more houses built as quickly as possible. That is now felt to be a perfectly practicable thing to do, and I am pleased to see that it is proposed that it should be done in the forthcoming year. One of the things that has always surprised and depressed me is the enormously long housing lists which the local authorities have, particularly in London. I am not talking about the country as a whole, because I know more about London and would rather keep to that area. I have wondered from time to time, when I see that these lists never seem to get smaller, whether they are not like some of the waiting lists at hospitals, which, when they are properly studied, need not be quite so depressing as they appear to be. One finds that some people have moved away, or have been rehoused, and often the figures prove to be not quite so terrifying as they sound.
One thing we should try to encourage as much as we can in the building trade is that it should actively concentrate on building houses and not so much on building offices, of which there are already quite enough. At the same time, I do not think that we need the large number of so-called luxury flats which are going up at the present time. I think it is a fact that quite a number of these flats cannot be got rid of by those who have built them or converted them. I have myself seen a number that have not been let, though the prices asked have not been very high. They have seemed reasonable for luxury flats, and I wonder whether the demand is there so much as it was. I do not want to suggest that there should be quite the control of planning which the noble Earl has mentioned, but I feel that there must be some direction in this way so that the building trade can keep its energies directed to where buildings are most required.
One thing, too, I was pleased to see in the gracious Speech is that there is to be development and improvement of

43
houses which, in that rather curious phrase, are "in multiple occupation". I remember that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said that the gracious Speech was written in Her Majesty's own words. I somehow can feel the sticky finger of the Civil Service in that strange phrase, which I quoted just now. But there certainly seems a lot to be done on buildings occupied by more than one person. I believe that a large number of these buildings should be pulled down, because they are worn out and nothing very much can be done to improve them. In 1925, when I was a young medical student, I visited many houses in one of the London boroughs near where I worked. A large number were in a state of advanced decay even at that time. Although a considerable number have since been pulled down, and have been replaced, it has always surprised me to see that some of the buildings are still there and seem even more decayed; and despite the fact that they are worn out, they are still, in 1963, in what is called "multiple occupation".
I should like to mention one further point, while talking about the improvement of existing houses. I think that as much as possible should be done (and this particularly applies to the country) to preserve and modernise houses which have some historic or aesthetic merit, so that they can be turned into reasonably convenient modern houses at a not unreasonable expense. If that could be done, it would be more satisfactory than pulling them down and building new houses.
Another point is that I wonder whether many of the local authorities, particularly in the London area, are not being a little too fixed and rigid in the way they apply their housing lists. I am referring both to the London boroughs and to the L.C.C. I know that Governments do not like to dictate to local authorities, but I would suggest that it might be possible for the Government to say that in their new buildings a certain amount of accommodation on the ground floor should be kept for what I might call emergency housing, for people who urgently need somewhere to go, on medical, health or social grounds. In the part of London where
44
I work, I have found considerable difficulty, which at times has caused me great embarrassment, when people who have come into hospital and recovered have not been able to go back to their flats on the second or third floors of buildings in multiple occupation simply because they just cannot manage the stairs. So it would be a good thing if some flats were available on the ground floor. If there were lifts in these places, the people would be perfectly content, but that is not often the case, and the result is that these people have to be kept where they do not want to be, and where they do not need to be—in expensive hospital beds at the cost of the State.
At the present time when this occurs local authorities say that they have a certain number of such flats but that the queue for them is even longer than the queue for other dwellings. That seems no reply to the point at all. If they have a few, but not enough, they have to provide more. If they did, it would do a great deal to simplify matters for coping with these particularly unfortunate cases of people, who are not always old but often quite young or middle aged. I would further suggest to Her Majesty's Government that some kind of hint or advice might be given along these lines. I am sure that many local authorities would be pleased to take it if it were presented to them in a kind and reasonable manner.
The other point I wish to raise is one about which there has been a certain amount of publicity in the Press recently. I think I saw it stated somwhere that it is practically impossible for a family with nine or ten children to get rehoused in a council house, because councils do not erect dwellings to take families of that size. There again, I can see the argument that one does not want to build a large number of council dwellings for families with ten children, because there are not many families of this size; but it should be possible, by skilful and internal planning, to erect apartments or flats which can be converted into bigger dwellings, if necessary, so that the families can be kept together and not split up as they are now.
There was one family which received a good deal of notice in The Times and other papers about a month ago, with

45
six children living in two rooms in an extremely squalid part of Stepney. They were to be evicted. The mother and children were to go to an institution, and the father elswhere. Luckily, a voluntary body took care of them and got them rehoused together. It would have been a dreadful thing if, merely because of the size of the family, it had been necessary to split up the family by putting the children into custody and sending the mother away, because nothing is more unfortunate for young children than to have the family broken up. One has seen over the last few years that a big proportion of the young children who go wrong (as one might say) have come from broken families and broken homes. Therefore, I think something should be done to ensure that when people have a big family it is possible to get some kind of accommodation provided for them.
I have a good friend who is a doctor with a big practice in Kensington. She was appalled at what she saw, and finally she got the Kensington Housing Association started merely to take care of these large families. This has been a great success. People have rallied round and helped, and in the space of two years my doctor friend has obtained seven or eight houses. With the support of the L.C.C. she has managed to accommodate families which otherwise would have been in great danger of being split up, with the father going to one institution and the mother and children to another. If this success can be achieved by a purely voluntary body, how much more should it be possible for a local authority to do!
There are one or two general remarks that I should like to make. First of all, like the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition, I am sorry that there is no mention of anything to do with pensions for the elderly, or about trying to make their lot a little more comfortable and easy. That, I think, is greatly to be deplored, because elderly persons living on their pensions alone are at the present time finding it difficult to make both ends meet comfortably. Finally, there are two things that I regret. First, I am sorry that there is no mention of legislation which might improve the system of electing Members to another place, so that we might have there a more representative body. Then, I am
46
sure that it would have given great pleasure to my noble friend Lord Rea if something had been done to change the start of the fiscal year from April 1 to January 1, thus conforming with most of the other parts of the world, so that your Lordships and Members of another place would be able to take their vacation at a more reasonable time during the summer.
3.15 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will be dealing with many of the points raised in to-day's debate when he comes to wind up the debate. My function to-day, which I will explain in a moment, is probably to deal more precisely with the legislation that is promised in the gracious Speech. I must, however, refer to the speeches of the two noble Lords who have just spoken, though they may also be answered in greater detail by my noble and learned friend and during the course of the debate by other noble Lords. If I may reverse the order of speaking and refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, first, that dealt largely with housing. I would start off by saying that I am grateful, as I am sure my right honourable friend also will be, for certain ideas put forward by the noble Lord, which of course will be considered. But the noble Lord could not have chosen a more unfortunate day, both for himself and for me, to raise this particular question, because in about half an hour's time many of the questions he has now raised will be answered in a rather lengthy and complicated Housing Bill, as to which there will be a statement to the Press thereafter by my right honourable friend. I think the noble Lord will find many of his questions answered in that Bill. If, however, when he has had time to examine the Bill he still finds any of the points he has raised to-day not covered by it, then doubtless he and I can arrange some method by which we can discuss them.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether this is a statement to the Press on the scope of the Government's housing programme, in relation to the

47
Housing Bill, in anticipation of the Minister's Second Reading speech to the House of Commons?
LORD DERWENT: No; it is a brief note. As the noble Lord knows, it nearly always happens in the case of a complicated Bill that a brief note is given to the Press telling them the lines on which the Bill is running so that they may understand it before they have had time to read it fully. It is not a Second Reading speech or anything like it. This has been done by every Government for a long time.
As regards the speech of the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition, much of it was in the nature of (if there is such a thing) pure politics. I should only like to refer to the remarks of the noble Earl in so far as they covered the actual legislation promised in the gracious Speech. There was much talk from the noble Earl about this being electioneering legislation; that nothing had happened in twelve years, and there was a rush to get this through before the Election. And he asked what we had been doing for twelve years. I shall ask the House to examine the legislation as it comes forward, and the House will then see that in practically every case the legislation in this Session is a continuation of the policy that has been going for several Sessions.
As your Lordships know, it is virtually impossible in questions of major policy, for a variety of reasons, to complete the whole of a policy during one Session and in one Bill. It is no good saying that nothing has happened until now. When I come to the actual Bills, your Lordships will see that they are nearly all a follow-up of previous Bills or previous inquiries, because this policy has been continuous for twelve years. There are various reasons why one cannot deal with major policy all in one Session or in one Bill. First of all, there is this question on which noble Lords in recent Sessions have become expert—namely, of Parliamentary time. Secondly, in complicated and sometimes somewhat experimental policies and legislation it is wise to proceed step by step. Even after full discussion in Parliament, mistakes can be made, and it is easy to correct them if the steps
48
are taken one at a time. Certain of the Bills that will be coming forward this time are purely the next stages in a particular policy.
The third reason is that I think it is proper for a Government so far as possible to lead public opinion, but in highly controversial matters it is impossible for any Government to go too far ahead of public opinion. For that reason again, certain legislation has to be taken step by step. Finally, there is this matter of the Opposition. It is only fair to the Opposition to take things step by step. When a policy is first mooted they oppose it bitterly. Then they find that in practice it is working remarkably well, and so in the second stage they are all ready to support the policy. For that reason, I confidently expect that during the consideration of these Bills noble Lords opposite will give us full support.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Such as London government!
LORD DERWENT: Without being too long, I think it would probably be of most use to the House if I mentioned certain Bills which are referred to in the gracious Speech, with a slight commentary on each to show what is our idea behind them. I am not going to make a series of Second Reading speeches—even noble Lords opposite do not deserve that punishment. May I start first with the Police Bill, which, I think I am right in saying, will be published on Friday of this week? In this particular case this is the second stage of a problem, and it follows on a Royal Commission. The first stage was, in fact, a Royal Commission. This would seem to be an appropriate Bill at this moment, in view of the public concern about certain recent occurrences. I do not intend to say anything about the details of the Bill which your Lordships will have plenty of time to look at, because it is starting in another place. I must say, however, that I rather look forward to the debate on the Bill in your Lordships' House because there are difficult problems in this Bill, and the help of the House will be very welcome. But I think it will reassure the public.
Since the Royal Commission made their Final Report in May of last year,

49
a great deal of thought has been given to the fundamental questions which the Commission considered, and there has been a lot of detailed consultation with local authority associations and the organisations representing the different ranks in the police service. The recent shock to the public, as a result of what happened at Sheffield, I think in its way is a great tribute to the work done by the police at large in this country. It was that which caused the shock. I would remind your Lordships that what happened at Sheffield would have been considered perfectly normal in many other countries. I think it is regrettable that after tremendous publicity has been given to accusations—I am not referring to Sheffield now, of course—the same publicity is not always given when it is found that the accusations were without foundation.
I have been visiting various police forces in the last fortnight, and the shock to them about what went on was just as great as it was to the public at large. I was very happy to see that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary told the police in London two days ago that, where he is satisfied that the police have behaved correctly, he will give them absolutely h is fullest support. As I work for him, I promise that should that occur I shall do everything I can to support him in that attitude. It is extraordinary how rarely nowadays the police—who are working probably under more difficult conditions than they have ever worked before, dealing with people who are not always of the most respectable—put a foot wrong. I say without fear of contradiction that it is a great pity that the public at large do not always realise what a great debt of gratitude we owe to them.
The next matter I want to mention is the Bill about the administration of justice—this is being introduced, I believe, to-day—to reorganise the arrangements for the administration of justice in Greater London. This has been made necessary by the Landon Government Act, which was passed during last Session, as we remember. I think the only point I need bring to your Lordships' attention is that it is intended that the present Bill should come into effect on the same day as the local government changes brought about by that Act.
50
There will be, I believe, widespread approval for the Government decision announced in the gracious Speech—
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, before the noble Lord passes from the Bill affecting justice in London, may I take it that when he says it will come into effect on the same date as the London Government Act he means 1965 (because that is the effective date for operation) and not 1964? It would be a pity if this came into force before the physical change of the London Government Act; there could be a chaotic situation.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is right—I think it is 1965. I have not examined the Bill, but that is my impression. If I am wrong, I will let the noble Lord know before the end of to-day's Sitting.
There will, I believe, be widespread approval for the Government's decision, announced in the gracious Speech, to empower the Court of Criminal Appeal to order a new trial on grounds of fresh evidence. The absence of such power up to now has been criticised for a long time by many lawyers and on occasions by the Court of Criminal Appeal itself; for instance, there was the recent example when they allowed the appeal of "Lucky" Gordon. The Bill which we shall introduce will propose to empower the court to order a new trial on fresh evidence, both in the case where a convicted person has exercised his right of appeal against conviction, and also where the Home Secretary has himself referred the case to the court under Section 19 of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907. I think perhaps all I need say is to emphasise at this stage that there is no question of a re-trial following acquittal whether there is new evidence or whether there is not.
Also coming forward is the matter of compensation for victims of crimes of violence. Your Lordships will, I am sure, welcome the reference in the gracious Speech to this, because it was a subject of a fairly lengthy debate in your Lordships' House, and a very valuable debate, which took place rather less than a year ago. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said in this House last December, the subject has been considered not only by

51
a Working Party of officials, but also by a number of outside bodies which have all produced reports differing to a considerable extent in their conclusions. In addition, there was a proposal put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and by other speakers in our debate last year, that compensation should be payable ex gratia rather than as of right. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor undertook on that occasion that this suggestion should have the most careful consideration, and this has been done. The Government have thus had several conflicting proposals to consider.
On the main question of principle, I am glad to be able to say to-day that the Government have decided to introduce a scheme of compensation. This is a new scheme, and I must warn noble Lords that any scheme will inevitably be in the nature of an experiment at this stage. As noble Lords will be well aware from a study of the suggestions that have been published, in settling the details of the scheme a number of difficult problems have to be solved, and we are at present working on these. As soon as we are ready, which I hope will be fairly soon, we shall lay our proposals before Parliament in a White Paper. This will be done this Session, but I cannot give noble Lords a date. I think the House will appreciate that it would be premature for me to anticipate meanwhile the exposition we shall then give of the nature and scope of the scheme we have in mind. Perhaps all I need add at this stage is that, whatever scheme is adopted, it will not be possible to get something for nothing.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Good.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether this scheme will require legislation?
LORD DERWENT: It will in due course, but I think it important that it should appear in the form of a White Paper. That is all I can promise this Session. It is a very complicated subject, and I think that we want Parliamentary help in this Matter.
I have already mentioned the Housing Bill, and it will appear this afternoon. It is a long Bill and, apart from the fact
52
that I cannot for another quarter of an hour or so, I will not try to explain the details. It is too complicated; but I will say this about it. It carries out the undertakings of my right honourable friend the Minister, in his speech of July 22, when he used these words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 681 (No. 152) col. 1085]:
"The Government's position is that, instead of waiting for 1964 to review the 1961 Act powers, we are embarking straight away—I have already issued the invitations—on consultations with the local authorities principally concerned to see what further powers, if any, they want."
He added, after pointing out that the vast majority of multi-occupied houses were decently run (which is true):
"The position, then, is that urgent consultations are going on with the local authorities and the Government will introduce any necessary legislation at the earliest possible opportunity."
The earliest possible opportunity, my Lords, is this Session.
I have just a brief word to say about rates, which have been in many of our minds—and out of our pockets. Noble Lords will have taken note of the reference in the gracious Speech to rates and will ask what the Government have in mind at this moment. I do not propose to anticipate the publication of the Bill. I will content myself with emphasising that this Bill will contain only interim measures. It could not be otherwise. Rates are but one cog in the very intricate machine of local government finance, and the whole machine and its relationship to central Government finance is to be reviewed next year. Not until then will the precise facts about rating be known because the Allen Committee are still assembling the data as part of the task remitted to them.
There is no doubt that the changes resulting from the last revaluation have produced some cases of hardship. It may well be—we do not yet know—that they are rather less numerous than the initial outcry may have suggested. I say this because, certainly in one or two of the areas from which the loudest protests have come, they have had difficulty in assembling any volume of evidence of individual cases for reference to the Allen Committee, which makes one wonder whether this hardship is quite as widespread as one might have

53
thought. But whether these cases are numerous or not, the Government feel that they should receive attention in advance of any long-term solution which may come about from the wider review. I trust I am not keeping your Lordships too long, but I hope that the effects of my taking this time will be to answer certain noble Lords' questions before they ask them.
On education, may I say a word about the Newsom Report? It was a coincidence that the Newsom Report appeared a short period before the Robbins Report, but I think it was a happy coincidence because it reminded us of the need to keep all phases of education in mind. The Central Advisory Council, under Mr. John Newsom's chairmanship, was asked to advise my right honourable friend on the education of pupils of average and less than average ability—that was the object of the Newsom Committee. One of the major recommendations in the Report was that an immediate announcement should be made that the school-leaving age should be raised to 16 for all pupils entering secondary schools from September, 1965, onwards. Your Lordships will not expect me to comment on this, but my right honourable friend has made it clear on repeated occasions that he will make a statement on the school-leaving age before the end of this Parliament.
The Report made a number of most interesting recommendations, some addressed to my right honourable friend, some to local education authorities and others to schools themselves. A research programme was proposed, some of which is already covered by projects supported by my right honourable friend, and he is considering what action to take at the moment to follow up the further recommendations; some are in hand already and some he is still considering. I do not propose to say anything to-day about the Robbins Report. It is still being very carefully considered and I believe it is likely, to say the least, that your Lordships will be debating it at no great distance from now.
I would mention only one other point on education—this is not an education debate and doubtless other noble Lords during the next few days will be talking on education—and that is about school
54
building. We did not wait for the Robbins Report. My right honourable friend has already cleared the ground and launched the programmes for a further massive advance at all levels of educational building. As I say, all this legislation coming on is continuous and, in fact, I would point out to your Lordships that most of the plans in the Robbins Report for attaining the targets laid down for 1967–68 have already been laid. We did not wait for the Robbins Report to get on with that work.
My Lords, I do not think I will say anything else apart from mentioning one other Bill, the Plant Breeders' Rights Bill. My noble friend Lord St. Oswald introduced it yesterday and your Lordships gave it a First Reading. I do not know whether I have been helpful to the House, but I hope I have cleared up certain points about these Bills, what they are intended to do, and that, at any rate, what I have said will give your Lordships something to think about; and it may well be that some noble Lords will find that I have satisfied them completely.
3.38 p.m.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I share with at least one of your Lordships the unusual experience of making my maiden speech this afternoon from the same seat, from the same Bench, from the same side of the Chamber and in the same Chamber as I made my maiden speech in another place some thirteen years ago; but I can assure your Lordships that it is not going to be the same speech. I know, however, that I shall be received with the same kindly tolerance which was vouchsafed to me on that occasion. I am assured of this for these three reasons: in the first place, the strong and long tradition of courtesy and good temper of your Lordships' House; secondly, because I have been a colleague of many of the Members of this House whom I see sitting on the Benches of both sides during the variable political climate of these post-war years; and, thirdly, because the noble Earl who leads the Opposition was for many years a constituent of mine, and one of my most distinguished constituents. Indeed, it was my duty during that period to try to ensure that his mind was directed towards the right view of politics; and

55
I must say that I was grievously disappointed at the lack of success, which no doubt was due to my fault and which was apparent when I listened to his speech to-day in the lack of appreciation he has shown of the splendid record of the Government and the bold and imaginative programme which is contained in the gracious Speech from the Throne. But it is nice to think that he never voted against me.
Your Lordships will recollect that Mr. Disraeli, on becoming Lord Beaconsfield and a Member of your Lordships' House, was asked how he felt, and he replied: "Dead—dead, but in Elysium". I do not feel dead, and this House, with great respect to your Lordships, although the climate is temperate and comfortable, is not in my view Elysium; but I regard myself as singularly fortunate in the circumstances which enabled me to become a Member of this House at this present time; and I cast no backward glances over my shoulder. I believe that during the next ten or fifteen years there will be far-reaching changes in the Parliamentary institutions and administration in this country and I believe that, as a result of this, your Lordships' House will play an even more influential part in public affairs, though perhaps there may be some changes in its character.
It is with those aspects of the gracious Speech touching on such matters that I venture to put some thought before your Lordships this afternoon. Reference has been made in the gracious Speech to regional development, and I hope that this foreshadows big changes in the pattern of Government. The gracious Speech dwells on the intention of Ministers to modernise many aspects of life in Britain, and this, I know, is warmly welcomed. But it is not sufficient to build new roads and new railways, to increase the universities, important though this is, and to make available a very large number of additional houses for our people, without at the same time modernising the machinery of government. Indeed, there may be unnecessary difficulties in carrying out a constructive programme of that sort unless hand in hand with these developments is undertaken the task of bringing the machinery of government up to date.
56
I know that there are many people who believe that the task of modernisation in government is really too big to be tackled. I would never advocate, and I am sure it would never be approved by your Lordships on either side of the House, that there should be wholesale revolutionary change. But to argue that nothing can be done because so much has to be done is, in my view, a counsel of despair. Anyone who has been a member of the Legislature and a Minister of the Crown and a civil servant during these last years—and it has fallen to my lot to be all three—knows, I am sure, that the present machinery is not entirely adequate to handle the complex technical and sociological problems which are part of the administrative field, and inevitably so, at the present time.
It is, I know, easy to make sweeping assertions such as I have just made and it is extremely difficult to make practical and constructive proposals of reform. I have no doubt your Lordships are familiar with the recent essay of Professor Chapman. He advocates that we should adopt some of the administrative ideas and practices which have been evolved in Western Europe since 1945. I am sure we can learn from the Continent and I am sure we should not be too proud to do so, but I myself always suspect advice which indicates that we can take over and apply to the particular constitutional and political conditions existing in this country machinery or ideas which have proved successful elsewhere and would therefore prove equally successful here. Therefore, while I agree and disagree with certain of the aspects of Professor Chapman's argument, I am certain he is right in this: that an attempt to formulate the right questions about the reform of the British governmental system is the first step to wisdom.
I should like to suggest, if I may, what those questions should be, or at any rate some of them. I do not pretend they are formulated as precisely and correctly as they should be, but I hope it may help in considering these aspects of the gracious Speech that these questions should be asked as perhaps a preliminary, or part of a continuing, debate so that we may find and reassure ourselves of the right answers. The first, I would say, is: What should be done to give

57
Parliament a more positive and constructive rôle in the creation of public policy than it possesses at the present time? I believe, rightly or wrongly, that it is the lack of this rôle that is the cause of much of the sense of frustration which affects Members of the other place, and it may well be that thought will move towards using far more extensively the Committee system on an all-Party basis than has been used hitherto.
The second is, How can the Government have at its various levels continuous and the most up-to-date advice from non-governmental sources in handling the growing technological and sociological problems which fall within its administrative sphere? I have an immense admiration for the calibre of the Civil Service and the high standard of administration which we possess, but it is quite clear that outside expertise is essential. Although there are already a very large number of Committees and although there is access, to a certain extent, to outside advice in many respects on subjects of this sort, I am doubtful, from such experience as I have had, at any rate, that we are making the best use, from the Government's point of view, of the wisdom and knowledge and ideas which are available outside the realms of Government in dealing with the problems with which the Government have to deal. I am not at all sure, however, that the proposals which I understand Mr. Wilson, the Leader of the Opposition in another place, has put forward, would supplement—I think they would rather short-circuit—the normal facilities which are available to the Government. But that the problem exists and can and should be solved I hope will not be disagreed to by either side of the House this afternoon.
The third question I should like to ask is this: How can the devolution of power, including power over administrative policy, be effected, geographically and functionally, without destroying the principle of ministerial responsibility to Parliament or weakening the basic policy control by the Government? I hope, as I said earlier, that the idea of regional development and the new responsibilities given to the President of the Board of Trade may be a movement in this direction. But, speaking from such experience as one has oneself, one feels that we underestimate the resources which are
58
available in the Provinces of this country outside London, in the great North Country, in East Anglia or wherever it may be, not only to administer but to undertake decisions with regard to policy directly relating to the particular problems in their part of our country. I feel, rightly or wrongly, that by extending and devolving responsibilities away from London we shall be easing the burden, which is far too heavy, carried at the present time by Ministers and also by senior members of the Civil Service, and we may, as a result, get a more flexible and more intimate administrative system in this country, which is what we need.
The last question is, What is the most effective way of safeguarding the legitimate interests of the individual against abuse of administrative power by the State, whose field of action has grown, is growing and is very unlikely to be diminished? This is a problem which Parliament has considered and tried to solve over a long period of time. It becomes more important with the passage of time. I know that the system of tribunals is effective in certain respects. I know that there is access to Ministers through Members of the other place which is of great importance in bringing the difficulties and administrative troubles of individuals before the authorities. I know that there is, generally speaking, a sympathetic approach by the Administration, by Government Departments, to those problems; but still I think it is not enough.
I do not think for one moment—and I am sure this is the view of your Lordships as well—that something like the Ombudsman is the right way of dealing with it, but there are perhaps ways in which we can help to ensure that the interests of the individual in our free society are maintained against any danger of abuse of power by the Administration. We have in this country a very high calibre of political leadership, a Civil Service of great ability and integrity and a people whose history and ability to evolve free and effective institutions of government has made its mark on all the continents of the world. It is time, I think, we applied these resources to some of our own problems of government here, so that we, in our generation, may not be merely content to abide by

59
established processes but may make our contribution in our own time and in our own decade to what the late F. S. Oliver called, "the endless adventure of governing man".
3.50 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, may I take this opportunity of extending congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, on his maiden speech? Normally a maiden speaker is entitled to a measure of sympathy, but I think that the long experience of the noble Lord does not give him title so far as sympathy is concerned. I think he is entitled to congratulation on his concise and most interesting speech, and on the outstanding measure of success that he achieved in being almost non-controversial in what I am sure will be a highly controversial debate. I am sure the House will look forward to hearing the noble Lord on many occasions in the future.
The gracious Speech, which contains the proposals of the Government for the future, reminds me of many years ago when I had the job of examining a few applications for a certain post in an organisation with which I was associated. One that was magnificently written I took along to the boss. It seemed to give unquestioned title to the post. The boss read it and put it on one side. I drew his attention to the fact, and he said "Yes, it was a wonderful application, but I happen to know the fellow". I would suggest that we had better judge the Government to-day not on the vague promises that are indicated in the gracious Speech, but on the record of the past twelve years. I think it is impertinent to seek approbation on vague promises to remedy what our Leader indicated a few moments ago as being past deficiencies.
I shall be concerned with the home aspects of this programme and I will deal first with the omissions. It has already been indicated that there is no reference at all to consumer protection, despite the fact that fifteen months ago the Molony Report was issued and the Government gave an indication of their support for that document, particularly with regard to the recommendation on the subject of protective legislation relating to hire purchase. There is nothing
60
of that in the gracious Speech. I personally find it difficult to know whether this is home policy or Home policy. In saying that, I am reminded of a comment I saw in the Press concerning the recent Kinross campaign, when the Prime Minister was asked about trading stamps. It was reported that he had not a clue as to what they were until Mr. Ian McCarthy whispered in his ear. Then he said that the Government had no views on them. Perhaps someone forgot to explain to the Prime Minister about stamps, and apparently also forgot to explain about hire purchase. That I could forgive, but certainly I cannot forgive the fact of his non-reminder of the pledges that were made by his colleagues on this subject to both Houses.
Last January I had the honour of introducing in this House a Bill which gave expression to one of the recommendations of the Molony Report, accepted by the Government, which provided a 72-hour "cooling off" period for door-to-door transactions. I quote from that debate, and particularly I quote from the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, in which he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 246, col. 465]:
"I think it is only fair to say to the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, that since he produced his Bill, and to some extent because he has produced his Bill and we have had a look at it, we have had another think … We now think that the right course would be to have a comprehensive Government Bill covering all hire purchase matters."
No doubt he will tell us later that they have got one on the stocks, and that it will be coming along very soon. I am sure of that. But the noble Lord also said:
"But I can assure the House that we shall be preparing and promoting Government legislation as soon as possible …. We do intend to prepare this legislation and to promote it."
I attach no blame at all to the noble Lord, because he was speaking on behalf of his Government. Confirmation of that fact can be seen from Hansard of another place. The Parliamentary Secretary there repeated the pledge. He said:
"The Government have already announced in another place that they accept the principles embodied in the recommendations of the Molony Committee, two of the most important of which … relate to hire purchase practice connected with door-to-door salesmen, and extending the range of application of the existing hire-purchase."

61
He went on to say:
"We have been working on those proposals and I can assure the honourable Member for Hillsborough that the establishment of the Consumer Council will not delay us in our work here, and that as soon as possible we shall be putting our own legislative proposals before the House."
In view of those categorical assurances, I think it scandalous that the programme for the new Parliamentary Session contains no reference to such legislation. I have no intention of making a speech on hire purchase, and would merely say that hire-purchase debt continues to rise and abuses still operate. Only last Friday the daily Press referred to a case in the Court of Appeal where a finance company attempted to seize a car on which every penny had been paid, £686 16s., simply because the last two instalments were late. The company were not successful, but that case gives an indication of the sort of abuses that are still operative: and social organisations are still reporting practices of these door-to-door hire-purchase salesmen.
The gracious Speech goes on to deal with the subject of economic expansion, and makes vague promises of efforts to secure economic expansion. The Prime Minister has said that we need only to increase production by 4 per cent. instead of by 3 per cent. to achieve prosperity and happiness. It seems to me that this secret has been found in the brief period since the passing of the Peerage Act, in spite of the fact that twelve years of Conservative economics and Conservative operation have not provided us with the real answer to this question of production. An illustration of the sort of thinking of the Government towards production and productivity can be seen in a recent utterance of the Prime Minister. Speaking at the Mansion House, he said:
"I hope that those who command, control and manage industry will tell the wage-earners what each industry is doing, and why. If that is done, the results might astound them."
At first glance, that is a quite worthy activity: to inform the workers. But let us look at the assumption behind that comment. The assumption is that the obstacle that dams the flow of production is the worker, and that all that is needed is to let him know what is going on and he will start working hard or will make a greater contribution. I believe that that statement in itself
62
shows either abysmal ignorance or wanton disregard of the facts. It makes no reference to the vacillating Government financial policy of the past twelve years. It makes no reference to the absence of intelligent economic planning or encouragement of technical training. There lies the real cause of the lack of real advance in productivity over the past twelve years.
The Government say that they are
"determined to maintain the expansion of the economy in all parts of the country based on a high and stable level of employment".
I suppose they may have been similarly determined after the Election Budget of 1955, but in February, 1956 the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Macmillan, spoke of the "desperate urgency" of the situation in which Britain found herself, even though the White Paper recognised that world conditions had been favourable. Three years of stagnation followed in the wake of that decision. In 1959 the Council on Prices, Productivity and Incomes said:
"It was imperative to find some other way of dealing with inflation."
But in July, 1961, the bank rate was raised to 7 per cent., and the old restrictions were reimposed. The Government talk about the need for an incomes policy applying to all incomes; but they are not prepared to do anything effective about profits and dividends. Dividends increased from £431 million in 1952 to £1,150 million in 1962, much faster than wages. The Economist of November 9 reported that dividends in October, 1963, showed an increase of 15½ per cent. over 1962. I am not objecting to this, if it is an indication of increasing prosperity; but I do object to it when at the same time the Government lay down the dictum that "incomes should not rise more than 3½ or 4 per cent.". This is a contradiction that just does not wear with the average working man in this country.
The gracious Speech goes on to make reference to a modern transport system, and states that the Government
"will encourage the provision of a modern transport system …"
I think that that statement takes the first prize for impudence. I should be interested to know how they are going to achieve it, for it was the Tory Government which destroyed the integrated

63
system created by the Labour Government and which persistently refuse to recognise that transport problems can be tackled only as a whole and not piecemeal. I ask noble Lords, is it intelligent to close down 2,000 stations and 5,000 miles of track in a panic hurry before an adequate alternative of roads and motorways can be provided? Only a matter of days ago the Roads Campaign Council made a statement which was published world-wide. They said
"… viewed with all the objectivity that we can muster we cannot ignore the fact that the great majority of the plans for highways which the Government are offering to the electorate are ten years behind the times."
Mr. James Drake, the Lancashire County Surveyor, in his review to his Highways Committee, says this in regard to Lancashire roads:
"Even now trunk roads are up to three and four times overloaded; by 1970 one trunk road will be six times overloaded."
To-day we are spending less as a proportion of our national expenditure than we spent in 1939, despite the enormous increase in contribution to the national Exchequer made by the road user and motor car owner. I believe that it is impossible to create a modern transport system and at the same time refuse to recognise the need to integrate long-distance road haulage in such a system.
I turn now to the question of housing. I appreciate the fact, as we have heard, that there is in prospect a Bill that will deal with many of these problems of housing. I welcome the news, and we look forward with keen anticipation to the prospect of reading and discussing that Bill. Nevertheless, I feel that it is still pertinent to make certain comments concerning the basic deficiencies in the Government's approach towards the whole question of housing. The gracious Speech tells us:
"The rate of house building will be increased."
Well, we certainly need it, and we certainly need substantial improvement in the standard of house building. We need also an assurance that something drastic will be done to deal with the question of the land rackets, which are unquestionably placing a great restriction on the development of decent working-class houses. I welcome the aid to
64
housing associations. They need help, and have come to expect it because they have had continuous promises of such help for the last three years. If the Minister wants details of such promises, I can give them to him. I agree that at the moment housing associations make little contribution in terms of actual house building—probably only 1 per cent. of the total—but there are great prospects there for improvement.
I should like to turn to one aspect of housing to which there is little or no reference in the gracious Speech, and that is an indication of the priority in tackling the slum problem. In 1955 local authorities classified 961,000 dwellings—that is 6·7 per cent. of the total—as slums. Since then 500,000 have been demolished, so that there are still 460,000 slums in occupation. But I want to make the point (I hope the Government are aware of it) that the 1955 slum census seriously underestimated the situation. And the Government bear responsibility for that, because local authorities were given no adequate standard on which they could base those estimates. In many cases they merely estimated on what they themselves could clear in five years. The results, in consequence, were grotesque.
Let us see whether we can test the figures. Liverpool estimated 43 per cent. of the houses to be unfit; Manchester, 33 per cent.; Oldham, 26 per cent.; but the estimate for Stretford, a working-class area in the vicinity, was one-half of 1 per cent. Cardiff registered under that census 141 houses—that is all—as being slum dwellings, a number less than that for Cheltenham. Those are the figures indicated as being the number of slums in this country. Even on that basis, the Government's slum clearance proposals do not take into account the large number of houses which were nearly slums at the time of the survey, seven years ago. I suggest that, allowing for the passing of the seven years, and for the original under-estimate, there are probably around one million slum dwellings still in occupation to-day. My Lords, words are cold things, and it is difficult indeed by the use of words to create a picture in one's mind of what is really meant by a slum: rat-ridden, bug-infested, no bath, inadequate toilet accommodation. One

65
can know what it means only by seeing it. Figures in themselves give no indication at all of the sheer horror of the slum problem of this country, and particularly in the North of England. And it is getting worse, not better.
One has only to look at one aspect of this problem (though I very much doubt whether it will make any substantial appearance in the Bill which is in prospect)—the problem of housing obsolescence. I believe that the Government are utterly unaware of the serious problem that housing obsolescence will assume in the years ahead. Approximately 4·4 million houses—or 26 per cent. of the total—were erected over 80 years ago, before the introduction of even the most moderate building regulations. I have estimated that one million of these houses are unfit for human habitation. If housing standards are to be raised, it is clear that the vast majority of the remaining 3·4 million houses will be due to be replaced over the next 20 years.
The housing situation demands a "crash" programme, but, even if it is spread over the next 20 years, this will be the minimum programme. If 4 million houses erected before 1881 are to be replaced by 1982, it will involve building 200,000 houses a year. It is agreed that the formation of new family households involves a demand for 125,000 houses a year, and the replacement of houses lost through redevelopment, new roads, migration from decaying areas to other areas, must involve 50,000 houses a year. The total estimated requirements are certainly not less than 375,000 dwellings each year for 20 years, as against the current level of well under 300,000 houses a year; and I believe that the programme in the last nine months was lower than in the same nine months of last year. What we are doing now falls far short of what I consider to be the minimum requirement for the next 20 years.
I would point out, with particular emphasis to noble Lords opposite, that the national figures of house construction with which we are fed so often mask many regional problems. Your Lordships will even have quoted in the Government's figures the construction of luxury flats that can find no tenants. In the London region and the South-East region there are a quarter of a million
66
more households than dwellings. Yet to-day, at this moment, there are 600 newly constructed flats in Bournemouth that can find no tenant; in Torquay 200 newly constructed flats are vacant and can find no tenant; in Eastbourne 200 newly constructed flats can find no tenant—1,000 in the records of house construction for the year, yet at the same time put in areas where there is no demand at all for these houses.
My Lords, there are many other aspects of the gracious Speech with which I could deal, but time is too short for that. I would end by saying that the gracious Speech, at least to this side of the House, far from being a battle-cry for a dispirited and discredited Tory Party and a blueprint for national development, merely provides an illuminating display of twelve years of wasted effort.
4.13 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, as agriculture is again mentioned in the gracious Speech I shall confine my remarks, as I often have done in the past, to that particular branch of our industry. Year by year we have heard the same platitudes about that particular section. This year it is much the same, and I will give your Lordships in a moment a few of the Government's promises during the last few years, so far as agriculture is concerned. The wordings show no originality. If they had been read by farm workers or farmers who had spent the whole of a windy and wet day in a field of sugar beet at this time of the year, I am sure the enthusiasm for their job the next day would have been terrific. However, words to describe their next attitude to the Government fail me, but would not fail them when at last they realised the emptiness of the Government's promises, and that their lot was still to stick in the wet mud of rural areas.
I should like noble Lords to hear these references to agriculture, as they appeared in gracious Speeches in the last five or six years. In 1958 we were told this:
"A healthy and thriving agriculture will remain among the principal objectives of My Government."
In 1959 we were told:
"The well-being of all those whose living depends on the land will remain one of the first cares of My Government."

67
Further in that Speech this appears:
"Legislation will be introduced to provide grants for horticultural growers and My Government will encourage the more economic marketing of produce."
This year, at least, we hear a little more about horticulture. In 1960 the gracious Speech told us this:
"At home My Ministers are resolved to maintain a stable, efficient and prosperous agriculture."
In 1961 it said:
"My Government are resolved to maintain a stable, efficient and prosperous agricultural industry."
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Set it to music.
LORD WISE: In 1962 it said:
"My Government are resolved to maintain a stable, efficient and prosperous agricultural industry."
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: They cannot even draft a new Queen's Speech.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): Is the noble Lord saying that we have not done it?
LORD WISE: I will come to that in a moment.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: He is saying that you use the same words every year.
LORD WISE: I am not suggesting that this year it is entirely devoid of change. For that, I am sure, you are very happy over on that side of the House. We are told among other things, that the Government
"will ensure a proper balance between homegrown and imported food".
I will say a word or two about that before I sit down. We are, however, told in two paragraphs of the gracious Speech:
"My Ministers will bring forward further proposals for the…economic and social aspects of our national life."
That surely must include agriculture. Later we are told, in the paragraph relating to agriculture, that
"Proposals will…be made to enable rights to be conferred on breeders of new varieties of plants."
68
What a stimulus to agricultural production and prosperity!
The words were hardly out of the Lord Chancellor's mouth, when the Government introduced their first new Bill of the Session. It was that gem with a long Title, and I am sure your Lordships will forgive me for reading it again. Some of you may not have heard it, and some may like to see it again in print. This is it:
"A Bill to provide for the granting of proprietary rights to persons who breed or discover plant varieties and for the issue of compulsory licences in respect thereof; to establish a tribunal to hear appeals and other proceedings relating to the rights, and to exclude certain agreements relating to the rights from Part I of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956; to confer power to regulate, and to amend in other respects the law relating to, transactions in seeds and seed potatoes, including provision for the testing of seeds and seed potatoes, the establishment of an index of names of varieties and the imposition of restrictions as respects the introduction of new varieties; to control the import of seeds and seed potatoes; and for connected purposes."
The sting must be in the tail. What a moment for such an introduction by the Government of their much advertised schemes of modernization! No wonder some of your Lordships became hilarious and amused. We had just heard two speeches of great merit, moving and seconding the humble Address to Her Majesty, and to go from one to the other was in truth going from the sublime to the ridiculous. If other such incidents are inspired and operated by the Government, we shall have our full measure of fun during this particular Session.
British agriculture still remains in the realm of the world's greatest uncertainties. This has been brought about at present not entirely by our weather conditions, but also by the failure of the Government to realise and face up to the absolute stupidity of our marketing conditions and fluctuations; our selling and purchasing systems leading up to an unfair drain upon our taxpayers; and absence of consideration for consumer interests. I have spoken of these before, and cannot apologise for my further references.
The futility and pettiness of the methods which surround our agricultural systems are almost beyond comprehension. Our rise in production figures must

69
be the envy of all our other industries. I do not know of any which has excelled them; but, in spite of this, we drift along hoping and praying that some of those in high authority outside our industry will soon give way to those with a better understanding of our needs for stability, security and a livelihood commensurate with our day-to-day—and in some cases seven days a week—efforts. As we enter a new season of agricultural work, we cannot fail to look back upon a wet and trying hay time and harvest with difficulties of laid corn of high moisture-content, weathered hay, spoilt bales of hay and straw out for long periods and thus rotting in the fields. These are no light matters in one year of a farmer's life.
We cannot ignore the effect of rising costs within our industry—a rise over which we have no control whatever. We are bound to buy to try and increase efficiency and production, but costs are fixed by our suppliers of implements, machinery, repairs and spare parts and other services without any reference to or consultation with us, or consideration as to whether the articles or services rendered are good value for the charges which are made. Rising costs and lower returns must create exceptional difficulties for those engaged in agriculture, and many farmers will go under by force of circumstances and such economics. Control of the situation seems to be beyond the desire or capability of the Government. Small alterations year by year in subsidies, minor restrictions upon production and an annual reference to increasing efficiency provide no cure for what I believe to be a mounting and destroying agricultural disease. There is a call, and an urgent call, for a new policy and a new understanding of the positions and conditions of the industry whereby the producer can be assured of a reasonable return for his products and the consumer can be given good British quality—quality such as will satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry—without being exploited or overcharged.
Other points will no doubt be touched upon from time to time in your Lordships' House, but I should like to say a few words now about the new bacon agreement. Time will show its merits
70
or demerits, its gains or its losses to home producers. Its operation will be watched with keen interest, and maybe some criticism or applause as its consequences are felt. As your Lordships already know, I am a staunch believer in the quality of English bacon. I never buy any other; and my stamina for the day as I come to your Lordships' House is built up on a breakfast of English bacon. I can recommend it. I should have liked to see the United Kingdom's quota matching that of Denmark. There is a difference in favour of Denmark of 64,000 tons—more than the total imports from any other European country. I hope that, as the year proceeds, this discrepancy will be found to be wrong and the United Kingdom's quota will be increased. At the moment, there seems to be little profit in pig-producing, and nothing must arise to diminish our home supplies. Encouragement must be given to more production, fashionable curing and processing, advertising and packaging, so that the English product outstrips its Continental opponent. We shall also watch the forthcoming 1964 Price Review with anticipation and expectation.
Before I close, I want to say one word about something which does not appear in the gracious Speech. There is no reference in it to sport. In the last gracious Speech, I believe, there was a reference in that particular, but there is no reference this time, and I hope that the omission does not mean that the Government are going backward in relation to what help or assistance they can give to British sport. I also hope that, as the Minister for Sport has left or is about to leave us, some representative of the Government will be able to speak for sporting activities, for I have no doubt whatever that from this side of the House it will be our duty to raise questions on the matter.
4.27 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, as the first Back Bencher to speak from this side, I should first like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alport, on an admirable maiden speech, and I hope we may hear him often again. I should also like to congratulate my noble friends Lord Tweedsmuir and Lord Windlesham on what I thought extremely good speeches proposing and seconding the

71
humble Address for the gracious Speech yesterday. It is a very difficult task to perform, but I thought they performed it admirably. I should also like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Carrington on assuming the great office of Leader of this House, and to convey to him the best wishes of, I am sure, all of us on this side of the House.
This afternoon I wish to talk a little about the housing problem. I was very pleased to see, on the last page of the gracious Speech, these words:
"The rate of house building will be, increased".
Then, later, these words:
"Steps will be taken to help the construction industries to increase productivity and to achieve larger building programmes".
From the speeches this afternoon of noble Lords opposite—the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, in particular—one would think that Her Majesty's Government had done practically nothing for housing during the last 12½ years, but when one comes to look at the figures—and I have them here—one sees that 3½ million houses have been built in the last 12½ years. My Lords, 3½ million houses is a very creditable record. On top of that, 6,000 schools have also been built in Great Britain, housing about 3 million new pupils. That is another great achievement in the last 12½ years. And then we are told that the Government are doing nothing. I think that those figures themselves provide a little of the answer. But, of course, we must not be complacent. We have a terrific job to do in the future.
The only reason why I rise to my feet tonight is that, like many others of your Lordships, I am very worried as to the future. How can we increase this programme, as we must do, unless we can get greater productivity in the building industry? I spoke on that matter last February, and my noble friend Lord Bossom, who is a very great expert on these matters, has also spoken on several occasions on the theme that we must try to obtain greater productivity in this industry. Great progress has been made, I think, towards this increased target, from approximately 300,000 houses a year to 350,000 now,
72
building up in the next eight or ten years to 400,000 houses a year.
We have got to go in for much greater prefabrication. There is a certain prejudice against prefabricated houses; they are good houses but they do not look quite so nice as traditional ones and so on. But I think that, if we are to get this extra target, we have to do all in our power to push local authorities to build a greater proportion of factory-made houses and prefabricated houses which can be put up by semi-skilled labour. I took out last night the figures for this year. Although the first three months were difficult for building, the figures are pretty encouraging. In England and Wales, up to the end of September there were 187,328 houses completed and in Scotland 18,388, making a total for the nine months of 205,716. With a little luck in the last quarter we ought to get very near to 300,000. It may be 8,000 or 10,000 below, and I guess that it will be about 290,000; but considering that during the first three months of the year very little could be done, I do not think it is an uncreditable performance.
At the same time we must look at all the new methods. In America and Russia they are able to build in extremely frosty conditions by covering the buildings with the new cellophane material and thereby keeping out the frost. I think we can learn a lot from the methods they have used as they are accustomed to very severe winters and are still able to carry on building. But I am sure we shall be able to do something on those lines.
But housing, which it is absolutely vital to increase, is not the only thing. On page 290 of the interesting Robbins Report, for which I am sure we are indebted to Lord Robbins and his Committee, among the recommendations in paragraph 171, they say:
"There should be an immediate announcement that the universities' capital building programme for 1964 and succeeding years will be substantially increased so that more accommodation, for teaching and especially for residence, can be provided."
That is only another of the great problems that the building industry have. There are also the hospital, road and power station programmes, all of which are important. What is worrying me is that, at the present moment in England and Wales we have (and these

73
were the figures at the end of July) about 270,000 men working in the building of new houses by contractors and 13,000 men working by direct labour organisation employed by the local authorities. This makes a total of 283,000 for England and Wales. I could not find the figures for Scotland. That is to say that roughly building in England and Wales accounts for something like 275,000 out of the total of 300,000. This is approximately one man, one year, one house. It was the old formula that it takes one man one year to build one house. But if we are going to increase that number from 300,000 to 350,000 we have to try—if more men cannot be got into the industry—to get greater efficiency and greater productivity.
As my noble friend Lord Windlesham said yesterday in a brilliant seconding of the humble Address, the word "modernisation" also extends to new ways of thought and new ways of behaviour. My Lords, I think we have got to get new ways of thought in the house-building industry. I should like to suggest that Her Majesty's Government, because they give large grants to the local authorities, should look carefully into the question of whether they should not insist that a proportion of the houses built by local authorities with a heavy central subsidy should be built by these new methods to relieve traditional methods; because bricks are extremely rare commodities and bricklayers and carpenters are very difficult to find. Unless more men go into the industry—which I fear we shall not get—we must have greater productivity than we are getting now; otherwise we shall be disappointed. I do not think it has been an uncreditable performance; it has been a very good one in the last twelve years. But with the increased population of these islands we must do better than we have ever done in the past.
4.37 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, speaking from this quarter of the House I think I am exempt from making an Election speech; but as the first speaker on this matter from these Benches I should like to take the opportunity of saying that in my view possibly one of the greatest services done by the retired Prime Minister to the country was the
74
advice he gave to Her Majesty regarding his successor. Those of us who come from the North may remember Lord Home's father; and I remember his father as a man who I always thought was possibly the best-loved man in all Scotland. Wherever the Earl of Home went on the Border, farm servants, who do not normally attend meetings, would flock to hear and see and talk to him. I am sorry that for the moment my noble friend Lord Greenhill is not in his place, but I am sure that he would agree with me that it was just the same among all ranks in Glasgow in regard to the affection in which the noble Earl was held; and I have heard many endearing stories about him from away in the North.
I think that possibly the noble Earl who rose to be Foreign Secretary in your Lordships' House inherited even greater ability than his father possessed. But he also inherited a name which was a passport to every door and every heart in Scotland. I think that for him to have adopted without any fuss or bother, the disguise which Parliament has decreed in order to serve his country more effectively is a very great service to the country and one for which everybody in every quarter of the House may—whatever their lips may say—be genuinely grateful.
I would also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alport, on a very interesting maiden speech. I was greatly sympathetic, particularly when he said that when one investigates any subject and examines it, the important thing is to know what questions to ask. With regard to the matter on which he was speaking I should like just to say that I am not at all sure that people engaged in the active practice of politics are the likeliest to formulate the questions that ought to be preliminary to the examination he wants.
I come now, my Lords, to two points which I wish to put to the House. The first is the Government undertaking
"to consider arrangements for the payment of compensation to the victims of criminal violence."
I remember the passage in your Lordships' House of the Criminal Justice Act of 1946 or 1947, and that on two occasions I put down Amendments to the

75
Bill to provide precisely that. On one occasion, I was helped in drafting an Amendment by one of the greatest Law Officers of the Crown. On each occasion, the House and the Government laughed me to scorn. Since that time, noble Lords from all parts of the House have asked that something should be done in this direction, and I am very glad to find that it is now being done by those noble friends whom I have left with so much sorrow and so much reluctance.
The last thing I wish to speak to your Lordships about is only a half line in the gracious Speech—that is, the proposal "to amend the law of Scotland concerning succession." If that had been all that I knew about this matter, I would congratulate Her Majesty's Government on having seized a great opportunity—because it is a great opportunity, and there is room for something extremely useful and beneficial to be done in that direction. But I have seen the Bill and I can assure Her Majesty's Government that it is certainly not going to be an agreed Bill. It seems to me that in many ways, and in many parts of the country, it would be effective and useful, but it disregards the history of Scotland. It disregards the social habits of Scotland.
Worst of all, it seems to me radically to endanger the trust which has been committed to us by our fathers, by the races whom we dispossessed when we occupied the country, to take care of the fertility of the soil and its utility in agriculture and forestry. I always feel that even if we, as a nation, were swept away to-morrow, if we left the soil intact, then at least we should have left a good reputation to our successors. But when any measure is adopted which imperils the fertility of the soil, then I think that everybody who has ever dealt with the soil should raise his voice in protest. I hope, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to accept very great Amendments in the Bill, if they produce it as I have seen it drafted. It looks to me to be a very difficult Bill to amend, and I hope that they will treat it as their predecessors treated some Bills which they found were not suitable, and will perhaps take it back and redraft it in a quite different sense.
4.43 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, it seems to be becoming a tradition in your Lordships' House that if more than one Scot is to take part in a debate, we must follow each other. My noble friend Lord Saltoun will forgive me if, as the only other Scot, so far as I can see, to take part, I do not follow him on the lines he has taken, because he has a particular interest in these questions and a knowledge of the history, particularly of the aristocracy, of Scotland which I do not pretend to match in any way.
I shall not attempt to go over the whole range of subjects contained in the gracious Speech. I should consider it not inappropriate, however, to suggest that the first eight paragraphs are paragraphs which could have figured in the Speech of any Government which happened to be in power at this particular time. They are quite non-controversial, the sort of things to which all Parties would subscribe—or perhaps, having regard to the recent acquisition to the House, I should add, to which almost all Parties should subscribe. But when we come to what I can describe as the election manifesto part of the gracious Speech. I am a little surprised. Some of the things which are said, I think, could have appropriately been put forward at the beginning of a Parliament, when a Government was succeeding a Government of a different composition altogether. This would have been appropriate for the Conservative Party in 1951, but that they should put it forward after being in power for thirteen years seems to me incredible.
Having said that, I wish, without apology, to go on to those aspects of the gracious Speech in so far as they relate to Scotland. I do not apologise to your Lordships for this, because the Government themselves have laid great stress on the need for doing things in those parts of the country where economic development has not matched up to that in the more fortunate parts of the United Kingdom, and where the rate of unemployment continues to be higher than the national average and the need for housing continues to be greater than perhaps is the case in other areas. I do not think that any of my colleagues used the words attributed to them by the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton. We

77
have not said that nothing has been done in housing during the last twelve years. No one in his senses could make any such claim. What we have said is that not nearly enough has been done. And it is no use for the Prime Minister to compare, as he did yesterday, what is being accomplished to-day with what was being accomplished thirteen years ago, in totally different conditions, and to say that an increase on what was done from then to now is all that is required.
I had the pleasure of going along to another place to hear the speech of the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister's reply, and I must say, as a Scot, that I was rather disconcerted, because the Prime Minister found himself unable on two or three occasions to answer questions directed to him in relation to the Scottish parts of his task. When he was asked to deal with the question of Scottish unemployment, he did not answer. When he was asked to deal with the question of Scottish housing, he did not answer. When it came to the question of roads, there was an interruption, particularly related to the Highlands and Islands, from an honourable Member who was obviously not a Highland Member, and the Prime Minister spoke then in some detail about the roads programme. What did he say? He said that the Government were spending seven times as much on roads in Scotland as they did seven years ago. All I would say is that, to the people of Scotland, that is no commendation whatever, because what they were spending seven years ago was trivial.
He spoke of what was being done, he said, from his personal knowledge. I think that there must have been a certain amount of Parliamentary licence in that. I wonder how long it was since the Prime Minister was on the road, say, in Ross and Cromarty or Western Inverness-shire or in Caithness, or in almost any part of Northern Scotland. I wonder whether he realises, for instance, how long it took to improve the eleven miles of road between Glen-finnan and Loch Eilort. I do not remember now whether it was two, three or four years they were on the job. I would point out that the word I used was "improve", because there is no suggestion yet of any programme to modernise the roads. What we are
78
getting in Scotland is a programme which, even on an accelerated basis, will enable us, perhaps by 1975, to attain a standard in the North of Scotland which was already out-of-date in the South of England in 1910.
If that is the Government's contribution to helping to continue—to use the words in the gracious Speech—
"to give special attention to the development of the Highlands and Islands",
if that is the measure of the help which is to be given, at a time when Dr. Beeching is going to add to our problems by curtailing our railway services if the Government permit him to do so, then it is a very uncertain "special attention" which the Government are giving.
On the question of housing, I thought it was most unfortunate that the Prime Minister appeared either not to know about Scottish problems, or, perhaps more correctly, did not wish to talk about them, because although the figures mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, are far from indicating that nothing has been done, the interesting point about it is that so much remains to be done. I am sure the figures mentioned by my noble friend Lord Peddie must have been an eye-opener to some Members of your Lordships' House. The figures, instead of going up, are going down, and nowhere more so than in Scotland. Yet it is acknowledged that housing conditions in Scotland—and as a Scot I do not put this forward with any pleasure—are among the worst in Europe, even after twelve years of Conservative Government.
What are the figures? In 1952 the number of houses built by all agencies in Scotland was 30,947. "All agencies" is the method which the Government use. I did not seek to divide the number up into houses built for local authorities, houses built by the special Scottish Housing Association or other housing associations, or houses built for sale I was quite happy that they should all be lumped together as houses built by all agencies, even though that is the most favourable basis upon which the Government could have the comparison made. I think it is reasonable to assume that by 1952 maybe the full impetus and the policy on which the Government had fought and won the 1951 Election

79
had not taken effect. By 1953, however, they were getting the full benefit of the improvements which they had made in housing activity. These were improvements, incidentally, devoted to increasing the number of units; and remember, as we knew in Scotland so well, that a great deal of it was accomplished by reducing the size of the units; concentrating on building three apartment houses where previously it was the case to build four or five apartment houses. I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, had to say about the difficulty of large families finding houses. Of course it is difficult for them, because they have not been built for years. But by 1953 the figure had risen to 39,000.
Then a strange thing happened. The Government obviously thought that this Scottish problem had been broken. The following year the figure was 38,800; in 1955, 34,000; in 1956, 31,000; in 1957, up slightly to 32,400; in 1958, slightly down again to 32,170; in 1959, 27,300; in 1960, 28,600: in 1961, 27,200; in 1962, 26,700; and in the first nine months of this year, 18,300—or at an all-time low for this Government of 24,000 houses a year in the country with the biggest housing problem in Europe. I do not think that is much of a commendation for a Scottish Prime Minister, and I am not surprised that yesterday he chose to ignore the interruptions coming to him from Scottish Members of Parliament.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, may I point out that the third quarter of this year is on the upward grade again, with 6,987? The first quarter is low; but I explained to the House that it was low in England because of the bad weather and it has gone up in the third quarter.
LORD HUGHES: All I would comment on that is that they would have to build 21,000 in the last quarter to accomplish the figure which they thought was reasonable as far back as 1953, and I doubt very much whether that is going to happen.
I should now like to go to another subject in which Scotland is particularly interested, and that is unemployment. The Government's record on unemployment
80
in Scotland is not much better than their record on housing. In 1951, when the Government took office, the number of unemployed in Scotland was 51,081, a percentage of 2·4. It has fluctuated throughout the years, but during the month of October in only three of the years of Conservative Government have the figures fallen below those which they inherited from the Labour Government. The only reason why I choose October is that I wish to give the Government in this year the benefit of the most up-to-date figures. The last figures to be issued were those of October, 1963, and those showed improvements on preceding months. So the Government cannot complain if in 1963 I choose for the purposes of comparison their best figures for 1963; and it is reasonable, therefore, to take in comparison with them the same month of any other year, because if I had compared October, 1963, with September, 1955, and August, 1952, I could have been accused, probably with more than suspicion, of selecting the worst figures for the Government in any particular year. So some of these figures may be good for the Government and some of them may be bad. They are, however, comparable figures year by year, and, as I have said, in only three years have they fallen below figures of unemployment in Scotland which they inherited from the Labour Government.
What are the most recent figures? In 1959, after the Election, the figure was 86,000; in 1960, 72,000; in 1961, 65,000; in 1962, 84,000; and last month 90,752, a percentage of 4·2. This means that more than four people in every 100 seeking employment in Scotland are unable to get it. And remember that Scotland does not have the fortunate position that some other parts of the country have, where the Government can say: "Ah, yes; but there are more vacancies than there are people unemployed". That has not been the position in Scotland at any time during the period in office of the Conservative Government.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, could my noble friend say, in addition to the number of unemployed, how many Scots have migrated from Scotland in the last ten years because they could not get jobs?
LORD HUGHES: It is rather interesting that my noble friend should ask that question, because there is a by-election in my home town just now, and the Conservative candidate (I beg his pardon: he is not a Conservative candidate in Scotland, he is a Unionist National Liberal candidate) has discovered that people have been leaving Scotland and has attributed it to two things: the first that during the last twelve years they have been leaving Scotland because there was a Labour Government between 1945 and 1951, and the second, a more up-to-date one, is that they are afraid there is going to be a Labour Government next year. He has discovered that they do better than that: they do not only leave Scotland, but they leave the country, because the Labour Government made no provision particularly for scientific and professionally trained people to find employment in their own country. It seems to run in my recollection that when a noble Viscount who I gather is leaving us—that is, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham—was speaking on this subject he rather mildly reproached the Americans for luring these people away from us by giving them better conditions and salaries.
The Prime Minister said, with his desire for simplicity and straight speaking, that all that was necessary was an extra 1 per cent. per annum; that if the productive capacity of the country could be increased, not by 3 per cent. per annum but by 4 per cent. per annum, all our difficulties would be over. We could, for instance, afford the Robbins Committee's recommendations—that is, £3,500 million in ten years; we could afford the Newsom Committee's recommendations at some unnamed figure; we could afford the rehousing programme increased by one-third, and all the others; and we might even be able to afford something for the nurses and probation officers—but not, of course, a reduction in the working hours; that is still quite impracticable. I would remind your Lordships that when, in 1959, a programme, which by comparison with the gracious Speech was modest in the extreme, was put forward by my Party, we were asked where the money was to come from. When the answer was given that it would come from increased productivity
82
through a properly applied programme, and that this would be sufficient to finance it without recourse to higher taxation, we were laughed at by the Conservative Party of the day. Yet to-day this is the way the programme is to be financed. I agree that a greater programme than is envisaged in this document can be financed out of increased productivity. If we are blessed with a change of Government at the next Election, and a Government which will accomplish increased productivity, not for a few months in one, two, three or four years, but as a regular expansionist policy for the country, it can be taken care of easily.
What are the prospects of the Government being able to do that? The figures of unemployment which I have given for Scotland have been furnished to me by the Ministry of Labour; the figures of housing have been furnished to me by the Scottish Office, and I think on the question of productivity I cannot do better than to go to another Member of the Government in support of my theme. On the question of productivity, I do not want to take your Lordships any further back than April of this year when, in your Lordships' House, speaking in the debate on the Economic Situation, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said that if we took 1950 as a basic figure of 100, the increase in the gross domestic product in the thirteen years that had elapsed was only 133. The noble Earl pointed out that the increase in incomes was very much greater than that (I did not note the figure, but it was well over 100 per cent.), and said that that was part of our difficulties; that the cause of inflation was that income was increasing faster than productivity. But other countries have increased even faster than our country, and they have not had the measure of inflation that we have had. Why? Because their productivity has gone up much more than has been possible in thirteen years of a Conservative Government.
What are the prospects of ever getting a 4 per cent. increase? It is true that the Prime Minister says that at this moment the increase is running at 4 per cent. But there have been quite a number of occasions during the last twelve years when productivity was increasing at the rate of 4 per cent. But

83
the increase continued only for about two months on end, and then it went back. It would be fair, I think, to take Lord Dundee's figures of the Government's record as a whole. If you divide the period of Government office by the 33 per cent. of increase, we find that the average annual rate of increase is 2·54 per cent. If the Government could attain only an average of 2·54 per cent. in all the years of their office, what are the prospects of their being able to create the conditions to maintain—not to reach, but to maintain—a figure of 4 per cent.-plus over the next ten to fifteen years for which they are producing programmes? It is important that they, or their successors, should be able to do so, because some of the things which are in the gracious Speech will need, on the basis of what the Government themselves have said, a great deal of money to finance them.
On the question of university education, or of further education—because the proposals take in further education establishments other than universities—I looked up what the then Chief Secretary of the Treasury (now the Home Secretary) had to say. On March 14, 1962, he said that university costs to public funds—and he made it clear that when he said, "public funds", he meant not only the Government funds, but those of local authorities and other sources of public activity—had increased from £50 million to £104 million in the last five years, and might increase by a further £50 million, or more, in the course of the next five years. That is to say, by 1967 he expected an expenditure of £154 million, or perhaps a little more. Now we are told that the Government are prepared to add to the existing expenditure another £3,500 million in ten years, and yet the justification for keeping the figure down (as we know in your Lordships' House, because we heard the Minister responsible for further education, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, giving the reason why the Government should not accede to the request of the University Grants Committee) boils down to the fact that the country could not afford it. Now, overnight, the country can afford a programme which is more than three times the figure which was rejected within the last twelve months. The position of the
84
country has not improved to all that extent. What has happened in the intervening period is that the Government's electoral prospects have diminished to that extent.
I have been most careful not to say that what is in this programme is impossible, because I do not believe that there is anything in the way of expansion in the gracious Speech which is impossible of accomplishment, provided that we have a Government which sets out to let its right hand know what its left hand is doing, and works with a plan as a whole—spelt with a "W". That is what good government means. This Government forgets the necessity for putting the "W" on the front, and they are in a hole.
My final point is one on Scotland, which I think is a fair indication of the sort of way in which the Government have dealt with these problems. They have succeeded, as the Prime Minister stated, in bringing many industries into Scotland in recent years. Two hundred firms have come in from England, 60 from America, and 20 from the Continent. I have made two visits to America, in pursuance of our aim to bring industry to the New Town of which I am chairman, and I know that it is worth while going. I was also glad when the Secretary of State for Scotland himself went over this year to seek to further it. Some 50,000 jobs have been created as a result, and yet we have 40,000 more unemployed than before the whole operation started, notwithstanding the fact that, as my noble friend Lord Stonham said, as many people as there are new jobs created have left the country. If these people had remained, the new jobs would have been just as a drop in the bucket. Because of that situation we welcomed the Government's assistance for the establishment of the pulp mill at Fort William, an area which is very much in need of jobs.
I do not say that I entirely agree with the methods by which it is being financed, whereby the Exchequer provides half of the capital at a low fixed rate of interest and Wiggins Teape and Company take the whole of the profits and provide the other half of the capital. But, never mind: getting jobs is more important than getting a division of the

85
profits, so I commend it. The interesting thing is this. If the Government had commissioned Dr. Beeching to report a year earlier, there would not have been a pulp mill at Fort William, because he would have proposed to withdraw that railway line also; and if that had been closed, or threatened with closure, the pulp mill would not have been established. That is what I mean when I say that the Government make things more difficult than necessary, because they do not let the right hand know what the left hand is doing.
My Lords, I like much of what is in the gracious Speech; I like the sentiments which are expressed. I hope that in the next gracious Speech which your Lordships have the opportunity of reading many of these sentences will reappear. I do so because I am confident that when the next Government say these things, they will happen. All this conveys to me at this moment is that it is an intention of what the Government hope the electors will believe may happen.
5.10 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, after hearing during the past few days tremendous praise by Scots of a Scots Prime Minister, it was a particular joy to me to hear the gusto with which Scot attacked Scot in the last speech. I thought it was a lovely piece of civil war, in which I personally do not propose to intervene; but, nevertheless, I enjoyed it immensely. It seemed to me to bring a refreshing note into the whole debate that we have had, both yesterday and to-day.
I must say that, like the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, I read this gracious Speech as an electioneering programme. I thought it pretty good as the first shot fired in the Election campaign of next year; pretty good, provided that you read only the Speech as it stands and do not do what is the task of the Opposition, which is thoroughly to examine the Speech as a possibility of implementation in the period that lies ahead which remains to the Government of the day and to consider whether it is likely to be achieved in the light of the experience that we have had of Tory Governments over the past twelve years. I propose to examine this Speech from an unemployment and, particularly,
86
from a Welsh angle. Here we have the Celtic fringe, having been working on a very similar sort of subject and topic in relation to this gracious Speech as my noble friend.
My Lords, I must admit that when I read the gracious Speech my immediate attention was focused upon the first two sentences of the second paragraph of that part of the Speech devoted to home affairs. It reads:
"Plans for comprehensive regional development will be laid before you for central Scotland and North-East England."
This I regard as important. I must say that I was tremendously disappointed when the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, in the course of his speech from the Box, told us that he could not talk about the Bills that were projected in the Queen's Speech because otherwise he would be giving information before the Minister had spoken on the Second Reading of the Bill concerned and that he would, in fact, be jumping the gun.
LORD DERWENT: It was not before the Minister either in this or in another place made his Second Reading speech, but before the Bill was published.
LORD CHAMPION: In any case, we heard so little about these Bills that what the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said did not matter, because quite clearly he was not in a position to outline what the Bills will contain. But I rather thought that having done that, he ought to have gone on and told us something about the other things for which Bills are not apparently projected. He ought to have told us something about the plans that are to be laid before us for Scotland and North-East England. Apparently, Bills are not necessary; plans are all that will be necessary, and existing Acts of Parliament will be used to implement those plans. But, I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, speaking for the Government in this connection, ought at least to have told us what these plans are, because these matters are absolutely vital to the areas that are suffering large unemployment.
Since hearing the gracious Speech and reading that sentence which I have just mentioned, I looked back on the gracious Speech for 1959 and there I read:
"My Ministers will give urgent attention to the problems of those areas in which there is a need to provide for employment."

87
That was four years ago, and this "urgent attention" which was promised at that time has resulted in what? In Scotland, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said, between 1958 and 1962 the position in relation to unemployment has worsened from a figure of 4·4 per cent. for the registered unemployed to 4·7 per cent. In the Northern area of England as a whole the position is even worse. In the same period, namely, from 1958 to 1962, the figures have risen from 3·2 per cent to 5 per cent. It should also be mentioned and stressed, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, stressed, that over the period of Tory Governments since 1951 the figures for Scotland have risen from 3 per cent. to 4·7 per cent. and in the Northern area from 2·7 per cent. to 5 per cent. In both these cases the total area of Scotland and the total area of Northern England are taken; but within those areas there are these appallingly large, tragic pockets of unemployment, where the position is so very much worse, which must be dealt with.
It is a striking fact that the figure of unemployment for the United Kingdom as a whole was 2·6 per cent. in 1958, and it stood at exactly the same figure for the whole of the year 1962. Clearly, if the projected "urgent attention" promised in 1959 had been implemented, it must have resulted in a fall in the total of unemployment, and certainly it would have resulted, had it been urgent and had it been urgently implemented, in a decline in those tragic figures for the areas of Scotland and Northern England.
We hear, as I have mentioned, that after four years of "urgent attention" we are to have "plans for comprehensive … development" of those areas. One is bound to ask how urgent has this consideration been—a consideration that has permitted the situation to worsen; and why has action been seriously delayed until the pre-Election Session? We shall want to know very soon what the plans are, and, as I have already said, I had hoped that we should hear something about them this afternoon. Since the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, did not tell us about the plans, I sincerely hope that the noble and learned Lord who sits upon the Woolsack, when he comes to reply, will tell
88
is what these plans are, what the Government propose to do and how they propose to do it.
However, the Government have told us about central Scotland and North-East England—that there are plans to be laid before us—but I must say that the sentence which follows that seems to me to be extraordinarily vague in its character:
"Plans appropriate to other regions will follow".
That is what we are told. What does it mean? Does it mean that these plans are to be laid before us in this Session, or is it the Government's hope that there will be other Sessions in which they will be the Government of the day during which they will be able to lay plans before us? But this is the phrase that is used.
Wales, for example (and I said that I was going to say something about this part of the Celtic fringe) is bound to ask why the distinction in the wording for Wales, because she is in this sorry list of the high unemployment figures for this country of ours. At present, Wales has large-scale unemployment, particularly in pockets, as is, of course, the case in the other areas. I must admit that there has been a slight fall in the figures between 1958 and 1962, a fall from 4·1 per cent. to 3·8 per cent. That is a slight improvement of 0·3 per cent. over 1958; so apparently this "urgent consideration" that we were promised in 1959 has resulted in a 0·3 per cent. fall. But, of course, into this figure comes precisely the same point as was made by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes: that it has been effected by the pouring out of the manpower of Wales towards the more prosperous areas of England.
Since 1951 the rate of unemployment in Wales has risen. And during that same period 1½ million jobs have been created in the United Kingdom as a whole. Only 40,000 of those jobs have been created in Wales. During that period Wales lost 100,000 jobs in her basic industries. During that time, too, I think it should be mentioned, London and the South-East have gained over half a million jobs they are up by some 10·5 per cent. In Eastern and Southern England the total is up by 439,000 jobs, equalling 18 per cent. The Midlands are up by 11·8 per cent., while in this period Wales goes up only 3·2 per cent.

89
What I think needs to be stressed in this connection is that many of those 40,000 jobs that have been created in Wales have been created as a result of offshoots or English companies, which tend, inevitably and understandably tend, to be closed down when there is the slightest retraction or any difficulties are experienced in those industries. It does not apply to them all of course, but many of them happen to be of that nature. I could produce a fairly long list of those offshoots of English companies that have during the past few years been closed down; something has had to be done by representatives in another place to try to keep them going—delegations to the Board of Trade and the like—in an endeavour to persuade those companies to maintain their offshoots in Wales. Clearly, Wales comprises an area of high unemployment, and her problem ought not to be fobbed off with a sentence telling us that, "Plans appropriate to other regions will follow". Why has Wales been left out of the specific mention of the areas for which plans will definitely be laid before Parliament? Is it because there is little likelihood of this Government holding seats in Wales or winning them at the next Election? This might be a cynical question, but I think it is justified in the light of the past treatment of Wales by successive Tory Governments in connection with this problem of ensuring more employment in Wales.
The next sentence in the gracious Speech promises a Bill to make improved provision for industrial training. In this connection I would suggest that Wales, Scotland and the North-East need exceptional consideration—and here, of course, I would stress particularly the needs of Wales. The difficulty of this aspect of our problem can be brought out clearly by a single sentence. The fact is that the chances of a boy entering a skilled trade by apprenticeship in Wales are half those of a boy entering a skilled craft by apprenticeship in England. This is a tragic situation and I certainly hope that something will be done about it. It is true that in Wales there are some firms that shine in this connection, particularly the nationalised industries, the Coal Board, the electricity and the gas undertakings. There are others: Richard Thomas and Baldwins, South Wales
90
Switchgear and certain others in Wales. But still the fact is that there are not sufficient apprenticeship schemes operating in Wales at the moment, and I hope that this Bill which is projected and expected to deal with this aspect will take cognizance of this fact.
I recently had the opportunity of visiting a works in Wales established in 1946 and opened by the late Hugh Dalton—the Anglo Celtic Watch Company. I was delighted to learn while there that they train more boys in skills useful to them and other industries than they themselves can possibly employ. In so doing they are operating a public-spirited policy that is an example to many other industries I could talk about here to-day. But we certainly need a vast extension of the apprenticeships and industrial training. Welsh labour has in the past proved its adaptability and has earned praise by many of the firms that come to Wales. But prospective employers who are asked to go to Wales—and this pressure has to be kept up, of course—immediately want to see available to them trained skilled workers. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, nods his head in assent, because this is one of the factors which I am sure we shall have to deal with in the Bill expected. I hope that this aspect will be very carefully considered. In this connection generally, this business of the school-leaver, I think Wales tends to think that the Government, successive Governments since 1951, have lost the battle of the bulge of the school-leavers; we are not keeping pace with this particular job.
Towards the end of the gracious Speech there is a special reference to the Highlands and Islands. After the Prime Minister's election speeches I felt sure that some gesture would be made in this direction, and some gesture has been made in the words of the gracious Speech. I do not begrudge Scotland anything that might be done by this Government for the Highlands and Islands, but I am bound to ask, What about central Wales, an area which is in many ways similar to the Highlands and Islands? It is an area which has been the subject of many important reports, examinations and then suggestions for something to be done. The centre of Wales has a declining population, and

91
those who are left in the area are becoming poorer and poorer, relative to Great Britain as a whole, as the years go by. Anxiety and hopelessness seem to me to exist in the area about this perpetual drift of population towards the Midlands and South-East England; and the tragedy of this is that it is always the young and energetic who move, leaving behind those who inevitably would have this feeling of anxiety and hopelessness which I have mentioned.
Land in central Wales is available. There is water in abundance, as we all know—indeed, I rather felt last weekend there was too much water in South Wales and central Wales. However, water is essential for industry and there is plenty of it available there. It is true that Dr. Beeching is worsening transport facilities in that area, and while that has been going on—or at least while it is undoubtedly to go on—little has been done to the roads in this part of Wales. Nevertheless I think that a comprehensive plan could deal with all that. I see no reason why a plan for Wales could not cause new towns to spring up there, with universities and the appropriate technical and technological education as a necessary accompaniment. I end with the assertion that Wales has not had over the years, under Tory Governments, a fair share of educational facilities or employment and this clear injustice should be remedied. I feel that this will not come about in the life of this Parliament or Government, for the whole of this Election speech Smacks, as I said before, of a deathbed repentance.
5.30 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, we are almost at the conclusion of the first innings in the great battle over the final gracious Speech of the present Parliament. It seems to me that this gracious Speech is characterised by two factors: it is forward looking and forward thinking in its approaches, and many, indeed most, of the ideas culminating in the Speech are the result of legislation which has been laid before Parliament over the past decade or so. Let us take housing. The Benches opposite have decried the housing policies and results of this Government. I would
92
be the last to deny that a good deal remains to be done, particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said, in Scotland. But development areas have been set up and the rate of slum clearance is improving the whole time, particularly in the Midlands and in Lancashire. All this takes a good deal of labour and material. We in this country are extremely jealous of our Green Belt and of our land, and the more houses that are built the more land is it necessary to acquire. This is never a popular measure.
The same applies in regard to road building. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, rather decried the progress of road building in Scotland. I am bound to confess that I have not visited Scotland recently, but I have a copy of the 1961–62 Reports on industry and employment and on roads in Scotland. In almost every county during those years considerable development seems to have taken place, although in such counties as Ross and Cromarty and Sutherland obvious geographical difficulties manifest themselves. Certainly in England and in Wales, which I visited recently, considerable road works are going on. At last the Al trunk road is worthy of being called "A1". These road improvements are often carried out at considerable inconvenience to the motorist; but they are being carried out, and more money than ever before is being spent on road works.
May I turn to another subject which has been much in the public eye recently and which was touched on by my noble friend Lord Derwent, the problem of the police? The happenings in Sheffield are regretted by everyone, and those who have read the Report will no doubt be most disturbed at its contents. I do not claim to know Sheffield; but I do know Leeds, and a few years ago I spent a day touring the C.I.D. headquarters at Leeds where I was shown a lot of material and had explained many of the methods which are used in the detection of crime and the apprehension of criminals. I share, as I am sure the whole House does, the view of the Home Secretary, that where it is proved that the police are in the right (which I submit is in most cases on these matters) he will give full co-operation to the police forces. What is more disturbing in the Report

93
on the Sheffield incident—this is not the time to discuss that in any detail—is the large amount of overtime which the detectives in question seem to have worked. This is going on in many parts of the country, and is obviously leading to detectives becoming tired and possibly irritable, and they do perhaps at times tend, to take it out of, prospective prisoners rather too harshly. But some of the types with which the police have to deal are themselves indeed tough. I would withhold any further comment until the Bill is published and brought before us; obviously, it will be a most necessary measure. I should certainly hope that the watch committees continue to exist, to preserve the pride in the county forces, and that the Home Office are not given too much control over the whole police administration.
May I turn now to the vexed subject of rates? Again, we have not seen the proposals, but the Allen Committee has been sitting for some time now. I must declare a small, although not financial, interest here, as a Vice-President of the National Union of Ratepayers' Associations. There have in fact been a great many letters of distress sent to the Ministry, particularly from the headquarters of the National Union of Ratepayers' Associations, because many cases of hardship have occurred as a result of rate increases. This is particularly true in seaside areas where many people live on fixed incomes, and where there is little industry to cushion these increases. Any legislation regarding rates is always difficult to furnish, and even more difficult to implement; but certainly this Government have not fought shy of the problem of rates. We have had a number of rating Bills, none of them simple to understand, but they have at least shown that the Government view these matters with concern. The great problem is that, whatever measures are taken, rates have to be paid by somebody. There are, of course, a number of ultimate solutions which the Allen Committee will no doubt consider, but taken as a whole, the measures which the gracious Speech brings before Parliament are sound.
There have been criticisms that there are but vague references to further measures to be brought before Parliament. But Parliament sits for only a limited time in the year, and we have
94
had many complaints of over-weighty legislation. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Champion, that Wales needs consideration. On the other hand, a number of industries have been set up there and such constructions as the Clwydog Reservoir are taking in labour. I hope and believe that the Government will take action on these matters as soon as possible. But whether it is in home affairs or in foreign affairs, the Queen's Speech has shown the real urgency of the situation. These are not new measures, and for the very reason that they are vigorous and, as I have said earlier, the culmination of a decade of social improvements at home and of great improvements in the international sphere, I support this gracious Speech.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I did not wish to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, while he was speaking, because he himself is always so courteous to others. I therefore thought that I would wait until he sat down until I made this point. He referred to roads in the north. He indicated the geographical difficulties of Cromarty and seemed to accept those as reason for little or nothing being done. For how long would the noble Lord be prepared to accept that as a reason for a continuation of single type roads, with occasional passing places; and does he think that is a major contribution towards making the north of Scotland a tourist attraction?
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I am quite sure that the surveyors of the county councils are the best judges of that, but I am only going by what the official paper says, that many improvements have in fact taken place, even though they are slow.
5.42 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, we come now to the end, or the near end, of the first day's general debate on the gracious Speech. I listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, said about the police, and I have a good deal of sympathy with some of the things he said. We are all sorry about the Sheffield matter and the White Paper which has resulted, but it would be wrong to make a general condemnation of the police from the unhappy experience of one force—and, indeed, it almost certainly

95
is not true of the general body of policemen in the city of Sheffield. I have an affection for the police, partly because my father was a metropolitan police constable, partly because I am a Cockney, I suppose, and have come up against the police a good deal, not in any unfriendly way; and partly because I have been Home Secretary. I think there is at times a little tendency in some quarters, if any individual trouble arises in a force, or if some force goes over the line, to draw general conclusions which are rather disheartening to policemen in general, as has been recently manifested by members of the metropolitan force.
The Minister of State, Home Office, said that they are proceeding step by step, which reminds me of a former Leader of the Labour Party, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, who, in answer to the Left Wing, said, "One step is enough for me." Well, the Government go step by step, but these quotations which have been given by my noble friends Lord Wise and Lord Champion from quite a number of Queen's Speeches tend to remind us that the Government have been making promises of the same character, through the Queen's Speech, Session after Session, time after time. And if, at the end of the twelve years, they are making in the Queen's Speech the same kind of undertakings they made four, five, six or perhaps more years ago, then that is prima facie evidence that the Government have broken undertakings which they made years ago.
Arising out of the observations of my two noble friends, I hope that the appropriate officials of the Labour Party at Transport House read the proceedings of your Lordships' House. I am sure that they read the proceedings of the other place, and I hope that they read ours, too. If they do, I would suggest they go through all the Queen's Speeches of the last twelve years and make comparisons with what has been said time after time, for I think that my two noble friends have drawn attention to the possibility of a first-class political pamphlet on behalf of the Labour Party which could be exceedingly effective. I hope that that will be done. I have referred to the police, to which the Minister of State, Home Office, also
96
referred in terms with which broadly I agree.
The Minister said that a statement will be made about an increase in the school-leaving age before the expiration of this Parliament—which presumably means that nothing legislative whatever will be done while this Parliament lasts. He referred to the school-building programme. Here, again, I think is justification for the allegations that the Government between Election times get into a panic and slow things down—possibly have to, because of their maladministration—and then, when an Election is approaching, begin to expand and loosen up. For two or three years now local authorities, including Middlesex and London, and various denominations, have been declaiming about the restrictions the Government have imposed on school building. But now, with an Election in sight, the Minister of Education has begun to allow expansion of the school-building programmes. It really is a cynical business that restriction should be imposed when there is no Election in sight and that the restriction should begin to be lifted when the Election is coming along. It is not calculated to do any good for politics or for the cause of good Government. I sympathise with my noble friends Lord Hughes and Lord Champion in their references to Scotland and Wales in relation to statements which are made in the Queen's Speech, and I hope very much that attention will be paid to what they have said.
It is perfectly clear that the Speech has been written for the purpose of making a contribution to the victory of the Conservatives at the next Parliamentary General Election. That is its main purpose. It is a curious vehicle in which to conduct general electioneering; but there it is, and we must not be surprised. Indeed, the Prime Minister on the occasion of his election as Leader of the Conservative Party—the pro forma election as Leader—on Monday was perfectly frank about it: that elections, politics, mattered at this time, and must matter for the months to come, more than anything else. And, by implication, politics must matter more than the welfare of the country—that is the implication I draw from what he said.

97
Consider these words, extreme and dogmatic, especially coming from a Scotsman, because I thought the Scots were cautious. He said:
"So from this moment on, the fact that there is a General Election ahead of us must never be out of our minds"—
never, presumably, not even when they are drafting the Queen's Speech.
"Every act that we take, every attitude that we strike, every speech that we make in Parliament or elsewhere, must have that in mind …"
So here we have a confession that every single administrative action of a Minister, every legislative provision, every minute a Minister writes, must have relationship, not to the welfare of the country but to the political, electoral welfare of the Conservative Party. Surely that is a legitimate deduction from the quotation from the Prime Minister which I have read. I know, for two reasons, that his speech has not been misreported: I have quoted it from The Times and, moreover, it was issued to The Times and other newspapers by the Conservative Central Office. I say that this is a somewhat disgusting observation to have made: that everything in governmental administration, Parliamentary life and legislative provisions must be subjected to the electoral advantage of the Government at the next General Election and that the welfare of the people, the good of the nation, must take second place. But there it is, and I think I have put it on the record perfectly legitimately.
Not only is that so, but on Sunday there was an announcement in the Sunday Telegraph, which I regard as a reasonably respectable Conservative newspaper, though it is not always, thank goodness, slavish to the official views of the Government or the Conservative Party. This was followed by the Prime Minister's remarks on Monday. The Sunday Telegraph had a splash headline story on page one by the political correspondent:
"Big Publicity Drive By The Tories. 6,000 Sites."
This is how the article began:
"The largest advertising campaign ever run by a political party is about to be launched by the Conservatives. Already over 6,000 poster sites have been booked in England and Wales alone, more than in the 1959 Election, and reserved 'until further notice'. The cost until April is estimated at £250,000 and the party are prepared to go on spending
98
at this rate until the General Election. The poster campaign will be backed by Press advertising concentrating on provincial newspapers covering 104 key marginal constituencies."
This is pretty big, my Lords; and although I believe the courts have ruled otherwise—and we must, of course, accept their decision—I think all this business of pre-Election electioneering, months, perhaps a year, before the date of the General Election, is in spirit a breach of the Representation of the People Acts. It means that they are running an Election campaign before reaching the official date for permitted electoral expenditure, which has to be returned. I think it is utterly improper, and it was started by the Conservatives. It is perfectly true that the Labour Party is to some extent now following on, and I am sorry that that should be so, but it is almost inevitable, if the Conservatives do this sort of thing. The Liberals have not yet followed, but if they get enough money they may feel they must do the same thing. But this means an addition to the cost of electioneering. It means additional political power for rich men who can put their money into a given political Party. It is perfectly true that the trade unions subscribe generously to the Labour Party, but I do not think even now that the Labour Party funds for Elections are as great as are the Conservatives', by a very, very long way.
But here is another trick which I think is, again, a breach of principle, against the spirit of the Representation of the People Acts. Not only does the Tory Central Office run Election campaigns, and pre-Election election campaigns, but they persuade their capitalist friends, the industrialists, the big firms and others, to do the same, side by side with the political campaigns. As this respectable Conservative newspaper, the Sunday Telegraph, says:
"Strong pressure is also going to be put on business and industrial organisations to give their support by a repetition of the 'free enterprise' advertising drives run so sucessfully before the 1959 Election."
It goes on to say curiously:
"Their reluctance to do so hitherto has been a great disappointment to the Conservative leaders. The steel industry, in particular, decided some months ago, after a heated internal controversy, not to run an anti-nationalisation campaign."

99
They go on to give the reason.
"This decision reflected what is now the dominant view in the industry, that a Labour victory is likely"—
that is comforting—
"and that they had better concentrate on negotiating terms for an inevitable take-over rather than deliberately antagonise the Labour party."
That shows that, even in some capitalist circles, there is a reasonable degree of political intelligence and that they are not putting their money into a sinking ship—I hope not—which is what appears to be the case. But this is another method of bringing in great vested interests, great capitalist corporations—and I have no doubt landowners are in the business, too, including the speculative landowners. I have no doubt that they contribute to Tory Party funds. This is the method of mobilising corporate private wealth in the political struggle.
My Lords, I say, first of all, that it is wrong. But even if it were right, it ought to be legally compulsory for these concerns to declare what they are doing with this money. Their shareholders have a right to know, and they even ought to have a secret ballot, like the trade unions must have, in order to become involved in political expenditure. The Conservative Party also ought to be compelled to publish its accounts; and if, as we expect, we win the next Election, the Tory Party had better be ready, and these industrial concerns had better be ready, for a Labour Government bringing in legislation to these ends. I shall be very pleased if they do.
The question in this gracious Speech—which is, of course, a Government Speech, which is constitutionally right—is whether the Government will live up to their promises. I must say that all history for the last twelve years shows that the Government will not live up to their promises. The gracious Speech on a number of previous occasions has made similar promises, though their slogan language was not quite up to date at that time, but they have done their best to bring it up to date now.
"My Ministers will bring forward further proposals for the modernisation of Britain, covering many of the economic and social aspects of our national life."
It will be noticed that it says "Britain". My noble friends have referred to the
100
neglect of Scotland and Wales. I would refer here to the neglect of Northern Ireland, a Tory stronghold, which suffers from being a Tory stronghold. The Government say to themselves: "We cannot lose seats in Northern Ireland. Therefore let us treat it rough." It would be a very good thing for Northern Ireland if they returned at least three Labour Members to the House of Commons. More notice would be taken of them. But the Speech says "Britain". Northern Ireland is out of it. Yet the reply to the gracious Speech was seconded, without a word of protest, by a lady, a Member of Parliament from Northern Ireland, who should have refused to have anything to do with it.
The Speech goes on:
"Plans for comprehensive regional development will be laid before you for central Scotland and North-East England."
Again, Northern Ireland is left out. Merseyside, which I believe the Government have declared to be a development area—which was a welcome decision—is left out. Wales is left out. Why have the Government got spite against Northern Ireland, Merseyside and Wales? I do not know, but it is a most extraordinary thing, because it is notorious that these are areas of economic difficulty.
The gracious Speech goes on:
"My Ministers are determined to maintain the expansion of the economy in all parts of the country based on a high and stable level of employment. They will continue to encourage growth without inflation …".
My Lords, let us have a look at how far these promises of expansion without inflation are true after twelve years. We have not expanded enough during those twelve years. In fact, the rate of expansion has diminished in some respects as compared with what it was in the days of the Labour Government; there has not been enough expansion. The amount of industrial productivity has not gone up sufficiently—and that was beaten at any rate during part of the period of office of the Labour Government—and inflation has been occurring, not all the time but during a great part of the time of the occupation of office by this Administration. Noble Lords have only to ask themselves: What is the pound worth to-day in purchasing power as compared with what it was worth in 1951? It is

101
materially less in purchasing power to-day, which shows that we have been living under inflationary influences, notwithstanding the fact that the productive output of the nation has been inadequate. It is noteworthy that there is no provision in the gracious Speech for legislation for the protection of the consumer. There is, so far as I can see, no mention of it at all.
Then, the Government have got a biased attitude towards public and private industry. They do what they can to help private industry; they do something to help public industry, but not enough. In the gracious Speech there is a reference to transport, but what have the Government done with transport? They have impaired the efficiency and the financial wellbeing of publicly-owned transport. They broke up the British Transport Commission by separating commercial road transport from the railways, which in itself has increased the financial difficulties of the railways and therefore has been harmful to transport. They are doing a lot about road building—and they must do a lot about road building, I agree, but I think we must have a sense of proportion about the building of roads. For example, it is sometimes argued that if motor cars increase in number by 50 per cent. or 100 per cent. over a given period of years, you must have enough road-widening to take care of that growth for private cars or commercial road transport. I am not sure. There was a valuer to the London County Council who, in an exaggerated statement, it is true, said to me, "Mr. Morrison, do not go mad about roads. We cannot necessarily cater for all of the increased number of motor cars, and if we are not careful we shall be a city of roads with no rateable value." That is an exaggeration, but there is something to be remembered about it, something to be taken into account.
Take the recent Piccadilly project, when the scheme of the London County Council was disapproved by the Minister of Housing and Local Government after consultation with the Minister of Transport. Although it had been approved in principle some couple of years before, it has now been disapproved because it does not take enough account of the growth in road transport. There is an
102
enormous cost in land value in making improvements at a place like Piccadilly Circus. Are we now to accept the doctrine that there should be an unrestricted access to the centres of cities by private cars and commercial road transport and that the highway authorities have got to make highway provision for them? My Lords, I do not accept it, and I think the time will have to come when, at any rate so far as Central London is concerned, and possibly Manchester and Birmingham as well, the community will have to say, "You cannot drive private cars into the middle of these cities without special permission and a special licence which shows that you have got justification for so doing". Of course, justification would no doubt be properly afforded to Members of Parliament and Members of the House of Lords. No Minister would dare to upset them all at once; he would have upset enough people already.
I do submit that it is worth thinking about. It will have to be done, I believe, at some time—and this is an adventurous Minister of Transport, courageous in some ways, although he has not yet been sufficiently courageous to do this. However, I cannot expect that he will do it until after the General Election and in accordance with the Prime Minister's directive, and after the General Election he will not be there to do it, anyway. So in transport the Government's economic policy has been wrong. They have damaged the railways—they have a bias in favour of road commercial transport—and the economic wellbeing of the transport industry. Despite all their promises of further industrial expansion and progress, the Government have damaged the economic wellbeing of the transport industry, I think probably both road and rail.
In civil aviation, their bias against public service is shown. If ever there was a case for efficient, comprehensive, co-ordinated, consolidated transport services surely it is in the field of civil aviation. What is the good of inventing additional competitive routes when, as a matter of fact, they have got to conform to substantially the same fares and pretty well the same facilities? But the Government have deliberately imposed private capitalists competition on the

103
publicly-owned airlines for the purpose—for the deliberate, malicious purpose—of damaging the State-owned airlines, simply because they are publicly-owned. This is the "Government of broad vision, of fair mind". My Lords, it is not: it is a Government criss-crossed with vested private interests, that hate the very name of anything that is publicly-owned, even if they have got to put up with its continuance.
They talk about expansion without inflation. We had a crisis in electricity supply last winter, and, of course, Tories and some Tory newspapers blamed the publicly-owned electricity undertakings—why were they not ready for a bad winter? In the first place, you cannot run an undertaking on the basis that if a bad winter comes perhaps one in ten years you have got to make provision for it—not necessarily. On the other hand, it is as well to keep the possibility in mind. But what happened in the electricity supply industry? They wanted to expand their generating plant, they wanted to expand the availability of supply, but the Government, with their bias against publicly-owned industry, cut down the amount of capital expenditure they were permitted to spend. Consequently, the responsibility there, if there is a responsibility, rests with the Government and not necessarily at all with the electricity undertakings. Electricity supply in public ownership has been a brilliant success. In fact, its very success and the increase in public demand have been a partial contribution to the problem, which ought, however, to have been met by greater capital expenditure years ago in order that the supply should be there. The gas industry, socialised, has also been a very fine success.
These are some of the records of the Conservative Government since 1912, and many—
LORD LATHAM: Not since 1912.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: No; thank Heaven it is not as bad as that! I mean, for the past twelve years. My noble friend Lord Latham says it seems as long as that. That is a very useful contribution, and gets me out of my difficulties. I mean twelve years, of course. The observations made by my
104
noble friends, and in particular by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition in the forthright speech which he delivered this afternoon, show that the Government have never really gripped the economic situation, that they have not taken care of it, that they have not promoted an adequate expansion of industry or, over a great part of the period, an adequate balance of trade, although we are all very glad that it is better at this time. And it must be remembered that they inherited after the war, after we had been in office five or six years, an economic situation which they were very lucky to inherit And my Lords this laughter on the part of noble Lords and of the noble Lord the Leader of the House just shows how profoundly ignorant they are.
A NOBLE LORD: It shows what a short memory you have.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Not at all. If the noble Lord is to be Leader of the House, he will have to have a more responsible view of history. Consider the situation. We had a great war, with extensive bombing; houses were destroyed and blasted; factories, schools, hospitals were destroyed or blasted. Railways were damaged; businesses were damaged. Savings in foreign countries had had to be parted with, notably those in the United States of America. Our trade overseas had pretty well stopped. This was the situation the Labour Government had to face.
We did it—as my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition has said—not altogether by controls. I do not believe in controls for controls' sake. But we did it partly by controls; and if the Conservatives had won that Election then, according to the statement of the then Mr. Churchill at the time of the Election in 1945, they would have scrapped the controls, as was done by a predominantly Conservative Government after the First World War. And we should then have been in a mess. If the Conservatives had won the 1945 Election then they would have lost the 1950 and 1951 Elections, because they would have made such a mess of things. As it was we brought the country through that trouble. We did an enormous amount, not only of building but also of repairing;

105
not only of houses but of schools, factories and all sorts of things. And we initiated various things in the international field, including NATO. In the economic field we had to go in for a certain amount of controls; but we relaxed many controls. Indeed, the Leader of the Labour Party, when he was President of the Board of Trade, boasted that he had a bonfire of controls.
But I am sure that we came through that period with a substantial degree of success. We did socialise; we had public ownership. Now it is sneered at by the Tory Party, but what have they done about it? They have messed up transport by taking out a lot of road commercial transport. They denationalised steel, but the Tory Party did not have the guts enough in their anti-Socialist bias to denationalise coal. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, will tell us, when he comes to reply, why they did not denationalise coal. They have not denationalised the railways and handed them back to the railway companies who were on the road to bankruptcy anyway. Why not that, if they do not believe in nationalisation? They have not done it with gas or electricity. No; they preserve a lot of nationalisation and therefore this cry of anti-nationalisation is humbug. It is nonsense; and it ought to be dropped.
So I say that the Labour Government preserved, or at any rate maintained, a not impossible economic situation; and when the Conservatives took over in 1951 they took over a not fundamentally unhealthy plant. If they had won the 1945 Election they would have ruined the immediate post-war period and brought the country to a bad end. I say that the ex-First Lord of the Admiralty should study home affairs a little more now that he is Leader of the House of Lords and let him understand that you do not get truth merely by laughter and scorn. These are the facts which I am sure that history will bear out. Now my Lords, I not only believe in planning in Government—that is to say, in the Government being efficiently organised (because that is what planning means)—but I think it ought also to have a financial programme and financial planning.
I do not want to argue whether some promises given by the Government are extravagant or not sufficient. This is not
106
the time to argue all that in detail. I am not arguing whether they are trying to spend too much or too little. But I do say that any Government—even the Party in Opposition—should, when it makes undertakings, work out the financial implications on all subjects and then consider how, by budgetary means, they will find the money; so that it is a check-up, as the plan progresses, on what can be afforded. I do not know whether the Government have done that for the next three to five years, or whether they did it during their twelve years of office. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will tell us. And on this point, my Lords, I am preaching not only to the Conservative Government but to my own people as well. There should be financial "looks-ahead" and financial programmes along with other programmes in public administration, because these "looks-ahead" check against making impossible and irresponsible Election promises.
My Lords, it is good that there should be more housing, and now is the time when that can be done. But what about the land cost, which is an enormous element in the provision of houses? The speculative builder is there and the speculative owner is there. The great cost of land is one of the big factors in the high rents of some houses and in the purchase costs of some houses. That is another channel of inflation which the Government are doing nothing to check. What about inflation in land costs? It affects not only housing but the clearance of slums. Urban redevelopment is a vast need that certainly cannot be met in the lifetime of one Parliament. It is a vast thing to clear away the ugly slums and replace them. But all these things must be done, and we need, therefore, to look at the price of land, this enormous cost of land, which is itself inflationary. We also need to take care that the Green Belt is substantially protected and not nibbled at, as the present Minister of Housing and Local Government seems likely to do.
There is a considerable legislative programme in the gracious Speech. I do not know how long the Government estimate they will take to carry out this programme, but obviously there is a limit to what can be done, bearing in

107
mind the date of the next General Election. A Government that believes in political organisation, which the Prime Minister has told to put election considerations before anything else, should therefore know when the Election is coming; otherwise it would not have produced this gracious Speech. According to the gracious Speech the Election could not come until next autumn; but they may have good reasons to think it ought to come before. But obviously the length of the legislative programme has some relation to the time when the Election may come. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, can tell us when the Election is to come, so that we can get a reasonable estimate as to whether this programme in the gracious Speech is likely to go through or whether the Government know that half of it, or less, or more, will not go through so that they can include it in the gracious Speech without the obligation to implement it. They can do anything after an Election by way of abandoning the promises made before.
There is a new Leader of the Conservative Party. I must say that when we passed the Peerage Bill, which was to prevent young men from being pitch-forked from the House of Commons into this noble place, none of us dreamed that it was going to be used by a noble Earl for the purpose of pitching himself from this gilded Chamber into the other place down the corridor, but it has been so used. The new Leader has been chosen after "the usual process of consultation", which is a lovely term, repeated time and time again by the returning officers as well as by the scrutineers—the Government Chief Whip in this House and in another place, with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor as the chief returning officer, just to prove the judicial character of the high office which he holds.
I venture to say that the gentleman who determined the election of the Leader before it began was the former Prime Minister, Mr. Macmillan, who knew what he wanted and knew what he did not want, too. But we have had no election figures about this ascertainment through "the usual process of consultation". In by-elections, we get figures—very interesting figures.
108
Why should not we get figures about this? They would be interesting. And I invite the noble and learned Lord to publish them to the House and to the public to-day
I think that this "usual process of consultation" is much the same as the process by which Mr. Khrushchev became First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and Russian Prime Minister. I think that they do it in much the same way as the British Conservative Party, which just shows how near the extreme Right and the extreme Left, so-called, are. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could expand on that, too, and explain to us whether that be true or not true. But I guarantee that it is much the same. They take soundings: who will they stand best? Who will they stand least? These are the things that have to be found out, and up to now the Communists have done pretty well on Mr. Khrushchev, though they were not so successful on the dual Prime Ministers, before Mr. Khrushchev took over the sole command.
Having regard to the bias of the former Prime Minister in favour of the present Prime Minister, I must say that I think the present Prime Minister is being rather ungrateful. We had the Kinross by-election after the Luton by-election and the Prime Minister was asked what he thought of these two. That was easy for him. He said:
"Luton was the last page of the last chapter; Kinross and Perth is the first page of the new chapter."
Modest sort of lad, is he not? He meant: "Thank God, the end of Macmillanism has come! That was the last chapter and Luton was the last page of the Macmillan chapter." In effect, the Prime Minister said, "That is a good thing, too. You now have a good Prime Minister. Kinross is the first page of the new chapter." I think that is ungrateful to Mr. Macmillan, who, after all, exercised great influence to put the Prime Minister where he is. The Prime Minister might have been a little more considerate of the record and the history of Mr. Macmillan.
All the Government's actions are directed to electioneering. The public welfare and the public good are not the first consideration. Take even this Bill to lower the rates: where is it going

109
to lower them? Primarily in the areas of local authorities covering Tory seaside resorts. That is politics. The talk of modernisation, which does not ring true in Tory mouths, is politics. I do not expect the matter to be contested, because the Government would certainly lose. I would invite them, on behalf of my noble friends and my honourable friends in another place, to have an Election now. The country wants an Election. It is demanding an election. The country thinks it has a right to judge the record of the Government now, and although I think that the Government will be too afraid to have an Election now, nevertheless, for the sake of Parliamentary propriety, I invite them to go to the country, and then they will find out what the country thinks.
6.26 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it is my task to-night to wind up the first day's debate in your Lordships' House on the gracious Speech. My task is to some extent facilitated by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, because I am sure that he found it difficult seriously to criticise the content of the gracious Speech. I think the words of the Walrus are apt as a paraphrase of his speech. Your Lordships will remember them:
"'The time has come,' the Walrus said,
'To talk of many things:
Of shoes—and ships—and sealing wax—
Of cabbages—and kings.'"
That is the kind of variety in which the noble Lord engaged in the course of his speech. As your Lordships will remember, he began by seeking to give some advice to Transport House on the compilation of a political pamphlet. No one will doubt for one moment the need of his Party for a first-class political pamphlet. But I venture to say to him that, if he uses the resources of Transport House in going through Her Majesty's Speeches in previous years and seeing how far they have been fulfilled, he will be wasting the resources of Transport House, however vast they may be, because when that is done the result will not be anything like a first-class Socialist political pamphlet.
The noble Lord went on to talk about the two by-elections. My mind went back to 1945, to the Caretaker
110
Government, and how the noble Lord claimed, before the Election started, to "Let us face the future". My mind went back also to the fact that it was the Representation of the People Act, passed in the days of the Socialist Government, which prescribed what it was wrong to do in the course of an Election. We heard nothing then about some new electoral procedure. But, of course, what is always wrong is for anyone to put forward a policy on behalf of the Conservatives. It is never wrong when it is put forward by the Socialist Party: it was not wrong in 1945. The noble Lord went on to make a speech which made me feel that the years had not slipped by, because I think that I have heard him say much the same on at least one occasion, and probably more than one, with his diatribe against those who subscribe to the Conservative Party. He appears to think that a political levy is far preferable to anything in the nature of voluntary contributions. I do not intend to follow through every point made by the noble Lord, but there are one or two to which I wish to come back later.
In the course of the speeches made by noble Lords to-day, many different points have been made, and I will reply to them, so far as I can, in the course of a speech which I know your Lordships would not like to be a long one. First of all, I should like to add my congratulations to those already extended to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, on his very interesting speech on, in my view, a very interesting topic. The machinery of government is something which poses many problems and what he had to say is certainly worthy of careful consideration. I hope, indeed, that we shall hear him speak in this House often and have the benefit of his advice and assistance.
In listening to the speeches made in your Lordships' House to-day I, at least, got the impression that noble Lords of the Labour Party were finding it difficult to attack the content of the gracious Speech. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said that he would not say there was anything in the programme which was impossible, and he liked much of what was in the gracious Speech. That, I think, was the trend throughout the debate. Indeed, I would assert that the measures foreshadowed in the gracious

111
Speech are well suited to the needs of our time. They are progressive and in the national interest, and it is really ridiculous to try to assert that they are put forward in a spirit of mere electioneering. That it should be sought to suggest that it is something in the nature of an Election manifesto is perhaps to be expected, because I think (I have not taken the time to check on the point) that in the last Session of previous Parliaments we have had that kind of thing said.
It is true that we have had a number of speeches from noble Lords who sit on the Opposition Benches which I would describe, without fear of misrepresenting your Lordships, as of a a merely electioneering character. The noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, began his speech with a series of statements which I must say I found somewhat astonishing. He said in an early stage of his speech that the Government were most anxious that their failures in the past twelve years should not be noticed. Let me say straight away, speaking as a member of the Government, that I should be very glad if the full record of the Conservative Government for the last twelve years was not forgotten, but was remembered.
But then the noble Earl went on to say something which led me to suppose that he, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, also, hoped that what would be completely forgotten was the position in this country in 1951 after six years of Socialist office. The noble Earl went on to say this in relation to the period 1945–50: that the Socialist Government then put the administration of this country far ahead of any other country, due to controls and planning. What the noble Earl did not mention was that we were still in 1951 a strictly rationed country: bacon and ham, 5 oz. a week; cheese, 1½ oz.; cooking fats, 2 oz.; meat, 1s. 7d. worth a week; sugar, 10 oz.; tea, 2 oz. a week. And it had stayed like that since July, 1945. Six years of Socialism and not an extra ounce of tea!
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I must say that I find this argument very peculiar.
112
I listened to my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth (I happened to come in from another meeting) and he put the same point in another way. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor knows as well as anybody else that for the last three years of the war we lived on a ration which could not even be maintained at that level without Lease-Lend, and that within six weeks of the Socialist Government taking office Lease-Lend was taken away. We were, as I said in my speech, absolutely bankrupt as a nation, yet we had to try to build up an export trade, repair 3 million houses, rebuild and retool factories and everything else. I think the noble and learned Lord is being most unfair.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have no desire in the least to be unfair to the noble Earl, and I had not intended, in thinking what I would say in winding up this debate, to refer to these subjects which are so painful to the Socialist Party. It was the noble Earl's assertion that the administration of this country in 1951 was far ahead of any other country, and that it was due to controls and planning, that made me think it necessary to remind your Lordships of some of the facts. There is also the painful fact of bread rationing during those six years, which we never had to endure even in the worst year of the war.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think perhaps the Lord Chancellor ought to add the real words I put into those sentences. I said that we were far ahead of any of the other countries who had been war-damaged as we had been damaged.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I hope that I have not done an injustice to the noble Earl. I took down his words to the best of my ability, but if I have done him any injustice I shall be only too glad to apologise. But I do not think I have. Then, having said those things, the noble Earl went on to claim a degree of paternity for the gracious Speech: for he went on to say that if there was anything in the Speech at all it came from the long pressure of the Labour Party and other organisations. It makes it difficult for the noble Earl and noble Lords who sit on that

113
side of the House, if that is their view, to condemn what is in the gracious Speech.
There are four topics in the gracious Speech which are of particular interest to me. One, of course, is the Administration of Justice Bill, which was foreshadowed in the course of our debates on the London Government Bill. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, that the intention is that its provisions should come into effect at the same time as the changes in local government. I cannot remember the precise date, but it is in the Bill and it is tied to this.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I should like to put this point to the noble and learned Lord. He will remember, as he was in charge of the London Government Bill, that the transitory provisions come into force in 1964, including the side-by-side elections, but that the physical operation of the Bill, the transfer of property and so on, does not come until 1965. I gather from the Minister of State, Home Office, who kindly sent me a note, that it is 1965.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have not had a chance of checking the actual date, but I know that it is geared to the changes taking effect under the London Government Act. It is a complementary measure. I hope that it will not prove so controversial, and I do not see any reason why it should. It is a most important measure, and whether or not we had a London Government Act, in my belief the time has come for a review of the system of the administration of justice in Greater London.
Great emphasis has been laid on the need for modernisation in Britain, and I should be very sorry indeed if the modernisation of our legal system lagged behind. I do not propose to say any more about that subject, because if I do I may have difficulty in finding anything fresh to say when moving the Second Reading of the Bill, if it should fall to my lot to do that. I should say this, however: that while the Bill is primarily concerned with the administration of justice in Greater London, it also proposes some desirable changes affecting the whole country, which I trust will be acceptable to all your Lordships.
114
Then there is a reference in the gracious Speech to compensation for the victims of crimes of violence. As your Lordships will remember, we had an interesting debate on that subject in your Lordships' House some months ago. Many efforts have been made by many people to formulate a satisfactory scheme. The fundamental problem, of course, is that most of the criminals cannot themselves pay compensation because they have not the money to pay it. But I am sure your Lordships take the view that where criminals can pay they should be made to do so; and, under our law as it stands to-day, it is, of course, open to the victim to start proceedings in our courts if the criminal is known and if it is worthwhile to do so—that is to say, if there is any prospect of the criminal being able to pay. There are many cases where the criminals clearly cannot, and I think it was your Lordships' view that it was a proper development of our social welfare system, in which we rightly take such pride, that the State should make some provision for the victims.
I think your Lordships also were concerned lest any proposals to this end might be open to abuse; and it is very necessary that any scheme put forward should have safeguards, so far as possible, to prevent the successful preferment of fraudulent claims. When the scheme comes before your Lordships, I am sure we can look forward to another very interesting debate. I would say, if I might, to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that although at the end it may be that legislation will be required, we are hopeful that we can devise a scheme which it will be proper to bring into operation without the need of legislation. Indeed, there are some advantages if we can, because we are moving into an entirely new field, and there will be some advantage in having a flexible scheme which can be adjusted administratively in the light of experience.
The third subject which is of particular interest to me is, of course, the proposal that the Court of Criminal Appeal should have power to order a new trial. This has not come about just because of what was said by the Lord Chief Justice in the course of what is now referred to as the "Lucky" Gordon case. This has been a subject of discussion and argument among lawyers for

115
many years. Indeed, if I might remind your Lordships, no fewer than 25 Bills proposing to provide for new trials in criminal cases were introduced unsuccessfully before the Court of Criminal Appeal came into being in 1907. When the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, was passed, your Lordships accepted an Amendment providing for new trials which the then Government introduced. But there proved to be a great division of opinion in another place, and the Amendment was disagreed with on Report. This is a limited proposal, for it is not proposed that there should be any right to order a new trial where the prosecution have made a mistake, or where there has been anything in the nature of a misdirection. No man who has been acquitted will be able to be put on his trial again for the same offence. It is a very limited power to order a new trial where new evidence, which was not available or could not be produced at the trial, comes to light which raises doubts as to the propriety of the conviction.
Nothing has been said about the proposed Bill dealing with the hardship which may result where legal aid is given and the unassisted litigant succeeds against the legally aided litigant. We debated that last Session. Indeed, we discussed a Bill dealing with that in your Lordships' House. I am very glad to-day that that takes its place in the programme. Of course, it will not be introduced first in this House, but I hope that when it comes here your Lordships can join me in seeing that it reaches the Statute Book as speedily as possible.
I should like to deal with a number of points which have been raised by certain noble Lords in the course of this debate, and I hope they will not think I am dealing with them too shortly. First, there is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peddie. He complained, and used strong language, about the fact that there was nothing in the gracious Speech dealing with hire-purchase legislation, and he drew your Lordships' attention to pledges that had been made to him in that regard. I would say this to him, if I might. It has already been said that the gracious Speech this year was of considerable length, but it is never the case that the
116
Speech sets out in detail a list of all the Bills that it is proposed to introduce. I am quite certain that within a period of a few hours he may learn—and I am sure he will be delighted to learn—that his observations of a rather hostile character in relation to the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in this regard were, in fact, unfounded. I cannot say any more than that about that problem at this time.
The noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, made an interesting speech about the changes that could be made in building methods. I know that my right honourable friend the Minister of Public Building and Works is very concerned and active with regard to that. The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, paid a great tribute to the Prime Minister, which I am sure will be appreciated. He referred to his activity in suggesting compensation for victims of violence, and then he spoke, as indeed I thought he might, with regard to the proposal that there should be a Bill dealing with the law of succession in Scotland. I am not going to embark on a discussion of that to-night. He assured me that one could not regard that as an agreed matter, but it is very seldom that I have found any measure that is 100 per cent. agreed. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, made some reference to agriculture. I am sorry I did not hear the whole of his speech, but he said that there was some originality in the gracious Speech with regard to that subject. I think there is, and that the steps forward indicated in the gracious Speech in relation to that are desirable in the public interest.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, followed Lord Saltoun in a speech on Scotland. He did not talk at all about the first eight paragraphs of the gracious Speech. He said that they were not controversial, and they might have been included whatever Government had been in power. I do not think myself that the Socialist Party—I may be wrong—would have been able to secure a nuclear test ban treaty. Then the noble Lord drew attention to the road-making programme in Scotland. I must say that I was surprised that he picked out as an example of that the eleven miles of road between Glenfillen and Loch Eilort. It happens to be one of the few roads in Scotland with which I am fairly familiar. I well remember the narrowness of the road as

117
it was before the war. I should have thought that that was one of the most difficult bits of road reconstruction that could be done in this country. Last time I went along that road I was full of admiration for the progress that had been made.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, if I might interrupt the noble and learned Lord, I was not complaining about the quality of the work but of the tremendous length of time that it took. That was my only criticism of that particular stretch.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should have liked it to be completed earlier, because it was very tiresome with all that work going on. Having regard to the magnitude of the geographical difficulties, I was not surprised that it took a considerable time.
LORD HUGHES: We must agree to differ.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid that is not the only subject on which we must agree to differ. I was delighted to hear that the noble Lord liked very much what was in the gracious Speech and thought it is capable of accomplishment. I think he will find that great progress will be made in the course of the next Session.
The noble Lord, Lord Champion, asked me to give him details of the plans which were appropriate to the other regions. I am afraid I am not going to take up your Lordships' time in doing that tonight. Your Lordships will see that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade will be making a speech, I have no doubt quite soon, on that subject. Not much has been said about the proposals in relation to training skilled workers. I think the noble Lord, Lord Champion, was the only speaker to touch upon that subject. I must say I think that it is one of the more important parts of the programme for the next Session that we should be contemplating and, indeed, hope to provide for very increased facilities for training men to become skilled workers in fields where skilled workers are much required.
The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, made an interesting speech dealing with the police, and I was glad to hear what he said on that subject, as, indeed, I was glad to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, said at the very
118
beginning of his speech with regard to the police. I am sure your Lordships entirely agree with him, both in regretting what has occurred at Sheffield and in believing that that business in Sheffield was not in any way typical of the conduct of the police either in Sheffield or elsewhere, as a whole.
My Lords, I think I have dealt with most of the points that have been raised in the course of to-day's debate. Of course, despite all that has been said about electioneering, the fact is, in my belief, that the programme which we are now considering is the fruition of work started a considerable time ago, and the fact that we are now able to embark on it is an indication of the soundness of our economy and the result of the progress made since 1951.
I would just add this, if I might. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, made great play with the statement that the Prime Minister had made at a Party meeting, a meeting in which the Prime Minister was elected Leader of the Party, when a Leader of any Party could be expected to say something about the next Election, whenever it might be. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, with great respect, seemed to think that you could not have any political activities without in some way doing something which was not in the interests of the country or for the welfare of the country. He tried to represent that for the whole of the time ahead all that the Conservative Party would be concerned with would be politics and not the welfare of the country and the good of the country. I would say this to him: that the Conservative Party believe that the policies they have put forward are for the welfare of the country and the good of the country; and that is the basis for the gracious Speech.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to mention, as the Lord Chancellor kindly said he would endeavour to answer any points or questions that have been made, that I asked that we might have a White Paper setting out what was the overall cost of the programme. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has spoken of the necessity of doing that, and I think it is something which might become a practice for all Parties.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sorry if I omitted to answer that. It was not deliberate and I will certainly consider that with those responsible. I am sure something will be said about it during the course of the week. Whether further information is best given about that in a White Paper or not perhaps could be left open.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Henderson, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

HIRE-PURCHASE BILL [H.L.]
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to hire-purchase and sales on credit of goods; and for purposes connected therewith. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Peddie.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.
House adjourned at five minutes before seven o'clock.