Sitting of 16 March 1964

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    CITY OF LONDON (COURTS) BILL [Lords]
    Read a Second time and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Industrial Training Centre, The Hartlepools
    Commander Keransasked the Minister of Labour whether he will now establish an industrial training centre in The Hartlepools.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. William Whitelaw): There is at present a centre at Tursdale and we are setting up a new centre at Billingham. My right hon. Friend considers that these should give an adequate coverage to the area.
    Commander Kerans: Will not my hon. Friend reconsider the matter? More Industry is coming into my constituency, I still have to face the loss of the shipyard a couple of years ago and there is still 6·3 per cent. unemployment. Would it not he a good thing to establish an industrial training centre in the constituency to give greater confidence for the future?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I certainly appreciate what my hon. and gallant Friend said about the problems of The Hartlepools. At the same time, he realises that it is important for us to put a centre in one of the main areas of population, which is done in the case of Dillingham. It is, of course, available for The Hartlepools.
    Dr. Bray: What does the hon. Member mean by "adequate"? Does he
    962
    mean that the number of training places is one-quarter or one-tenth, of one-twentieth, of the number unemployed or likely to become unemployed, or is it related to the needs for labour for future industries?
    Mr. Whitelaw: We must be very careful in this matter to match our training arrangements with the jobs which will become available at the end of them. That is particularly important if we are to attract the support of all concerned, as is very necessary in a training programme. We shall certainly watch the situation and, if we can, we shall expand the programme.

    Post-School Advisory Services
    Miss Quennellasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the decision to raise the school-leaving age by one year, he will consult the Minister of Education with a view to examining the post-school advisory services of each department to meet the new circumstances.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Joseph Godber): My Department, the Ministry of Education and the Scottish Education Department maintain continuous liaison through the Central Youth Employment Executive, which will be examining this question carefully to ensure that the Youth Employment Service is ready to meet the change.
    Miss Quennell: Can my right hon. Friend give any indication when this Executive will be considering the matter?
    Mr. Godber: I cannot give a precise indication. My hon. Friend is aware that the proposed change will not take place for some time. I assure her that it will be given full consideration well in advance of that time.

    Employment Exchanges
    Mr. Duffyasked the Minister of Labour how large a percentage of unemployed workers has used employment exchanges in Great Britain in recent years.
    Mr. Whitelaw: The great majority of unemployed workers register at employment exchanges and youth employment offices. Large numbers of

    963
    unemployed persons who are receiving no payment register to make use of the placing service and also to obtain credit of their National Insurance contributions. Registration is, of course, a condition for the receipt of unemployment benefit and also, in most cases, for the receipt of National Assistance.
    Mr. Duffy: While I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for some answer, can he not nevertheless answer my Question by giving me an approximate percentage?
    Mr. Whitelaw: No. I am afraid it is not possible to give that.

    Industrial Accidents
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Labour how many prosecutions were brought during 1963 for failure to report industrial accidents.
    Mr. Whitelaw: There were 121.
    Mr. Boyden: Is not this an extraordinarily low figure? Does not the Parliamentary Secretary recognise that there are about 80,000 unreported accidents, many of which probably could have been the subject of prosecution? Is the reason for the very small number of prosecutions the overload on the Factory Inspectorate and the very few factory inspectors?
    Mr. Whitelaw: No. I do not think that it is. There are a large number of matters which have to be considered before one decides whether a prosecution is appropriate.
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made with the survey into the reporting of industrial accidents.
    Mr. Whitelaw: As the House is aware, a survey in October 1962 revealed widespread failure on the part of occupiers to report industrial accidents. Both sides of industry are cooperating in giving publicity to the reporting requirements of the Factories Act, and a leaflet reminding occupiers of their obligations will shortly be distributed to all factory occupiers.
    A further survey on a larger scale will be conducted in April and May with the co-operation of my right hon. Friend
    964
    the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. Claims for injuries benefit will be checked against reports of accidents received by Her Majesty's Factory Inspectorate and will show to what extent reporting standards have improved. This larger sample will give better information about the reporting standards of individual industries.
    Mr. Boyden: I welcome those moves, but would it not be desirable to trace back some of the results of the reporting of industrial injuries to the source—that is to the accident—and then make more strenuous attempts to prosecute? Does the Minister think that 121 prosecutions out of whatever figure he likes to give—it is many thousands—is sufficient deterrent by way of penalty?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think would like to express a point of view one way or the other on that. Cases of failure to report will certainly be followed up and, in appropriate cases, prosecution will certainly be undertaken.

    Bank Employees (Report)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Labour if he has had his proposed discussion with the four banks concerned on the suggestion in paragraph 326 of Lord Cameron's Report relating to the conditions of service of bank employees, on the lines of the complaint made by the National Union of Bank Employees; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Godber: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) on 9th March.
    Mr. Hughes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the reply he refers to was a very inconclusive one'? Will he not give a date when this very important matter concerning very important public servants should be dealt with? Will he expedite the matter?
    Mr. Godber: I am hoping to have further talks with the other parties concerned in the not-too-distant future. I agree that I want to make progress, but, as I indicated last time, I do not want to comment in detail at this stage.
    Mr. Prentice: A week ago, when answering Questions, the Minister did not want to be drawn on his own attitude on this matter. Will he at least go as far as to say that he takes the view as Minister of Labour that all workers, including bank employees, are entitled to representation with their employers when they form a bona fide trade union which organises a substantial proportion of the staff?
    Mr. Godber: I must deny myself the luxury of criticism of one side or the other at present. There are points in this which, as the hon. Gentleman is fully aware, are very complicated. I want to give myself the best opportunity of making progress.
    Mr. Prentice: This is admittedly a very complicated situation, as is shown by the Cameron Report. Is there not one simple principle here, that people are entitled to representation? Is not this recognised by a very large part of industry and commerce? Has not this principle been supported very often by the Minister's predecessor? Why cannot he come out in public and say that he supports the principle in this context?
    Mr. Godber: I think that the hon. Gentleman fully realises the attitude of the Government in regard to matters of this sort. However, I have indicated that, for the reasons I have given, I do not want to comment on this particular matter.
    Mr. Longdenasked the Minister of Labour if he will now take steps to contribute from public funds towards the legal expenses properly incurred by the Bank Staff Associations arising out of the inquiry recently conducted by Lord Cameron at the Government's request into a complaint against the Government made by the National Union of Bank Employees to the International Labour Organisation.
    Mr. Godber: I have explained to the bank staff associations that the Government do not feel able to make a contribution to the expenses they incurred in connection with Lord Cameron's inquiry.
    Mr. Longden: Is not this rather unfair? Was not the inquiry set up entirely for the purpose of giving the
    966
    Ministry some information—which according to the bank staff it already had? Could the Government not see their way to making some contribution to the necessary expenses? Obviously, the bank staffs have had to employ counsel for this business.
    Mr. Godber: I have invited the staff associations to come to see me on this and other matters. I am perfectly willing to hear what they have to say, but I must point out that in no circumstances previously have the Government made contributions of this nature, and it would be very difficult for me to establish a precedent in this case.
    Mr. Longden: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for saying that he will see thy; staff associations to discuss the matter afterwards, as I really think they have a point here.

    Apprenticeship Schemes
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Labour, in view of the drain of fitters trained by local firms to Government Departments and local authorities, what action is being taken by Her Majesty's Government to encourage apprenticeship schemes by such employers.
    Mr. Whitelaw: The movement of trained men between private industry and public authorities is by no means all one way. On the contrary, Government Departments, together with the Services, are, over the country as a whole, net contributors to the supply of skilled engineering manpower to industry.
    Mr. Digby: I am glad to hear that, but is my hon. Friend aware that as recently as 4th March my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War admitted that the War Department had taken on five times as many civilian fitters as it had trained? Will my hon. Friend draw the attention of his right hon. Friends to this point so that Government Departments and public authorities shoulder their full responsibility for running adequate apprenticeship schemes?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend is most anxious that Government Departments

    967
    should contribute their full quota to training arrangements. Indeed, during the Second Reading debate on the Industrial Training Bill, my right hon. Friend said that Government Departments would at least equal the standards set by the training boards and would make a fair and reasonable contribution to training in the appropriate industries. With that undertaking in mind, I will certainly see that what my hon. Friend has said is brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War.

    Scotland
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Labour what proportions of the Great Britain total of males under 20 years and wholly unemployed for more than 52 weeks were in Scotland and the Midlands, respectively, on the date of the most recent count.
    Mr. Godber: On 13th January, 32·9 per cent. of the Great Britain total were in Scotland and 4·1 per cent. were in the Midlands region.
    Mr. Lawson: Will the Minister bear in mind that this is long-term chronic unemployment relating to young men who ought not to be out of work at all? Does he not agree that the contrast between these two parts of the country is really staggering and indicates that the measures that the Government have stated they are following are apparently having no effective results whatsoever?
    Mr. Godber: I would not say that they are having no effective results. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that anybody who is unemployed for a long period is a cause of grave concern. I also agree that the high percentage in Scotland is very regrettable indeed. We are' trying, in ways of which the hon. Gentleman is well aware, to make progress here. I hope that the more encouraging picture of unemployment generally will help us to reduce these numbers substantially during this year.
    Mr. Rossasked the Minister of Labour what was the ratio of wholly unemployed boys to notified unfilled vacancies for boys at the latest available date in Scotland and the Midlands, respectively.
    Mr. Millanasked the Minister of Labour what was the ratio of wholly
    968
    unemployed girls to notified unfilled vacancies in Scotland and the Midlands, respectively, at the latest available date.
    Mr. Godber: In February, for every 100 wholly unemployed girls there were 75 unfilled vacancies in Scotland and 1,406 in the Midlands region. For every 100 wholly unemployed boys, there were 24 vacancies in Scotland and 694 in the Midlands region.
    Mr. Ross: Is the Minister aware that these figures continue to be disquieting? In relation to the figures he gave me on 27th January, they show that there has been very little change in the number of unfilled vacancies in Scotland, whereas in the Midlands there has been at least a 50 per cent. increase in job opportunities? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a whole parade of Ministers of Labour and Chancellors of the Exchequer have told us that they would not rest until there was parity of job opportunity? Can the Minister give us a date when the Government will achieve this state of being able to rest?
    Mr. Godber: No, I do not think that I can give the date which the lion. Gentleman wishes. In these comparisons, of course, it is true that the Midlands region, in particular, is showing a much better position. In the most recent figures, it is relevant to bear in mind that over Christmas, and again at the end of January, there were very substantial numbers of youngsters coming from school on to the employment market in Scotland. In fact, there were over 14,000 at Chrismas and 3,000 at the end of January, whereas in the Midlands region for that period there were only 2,000. It is only fair to make this point
    Mr. Ross: We appreciate these points, but we ask the Minister to appreciate equally that we have thousands of boys and girls who have been without jobs. Many of those who will get jobs when they leave school will find in two years' time that they are paid off so that the employers can take on labour coming from school.
    Mr. Godber: I accept that there may be a degree of this. For that reason, we are seeking all the time to get as great a percentage of them into apprenticeship as we can.
    Mr. Hannanasked the Minister of Labour what was the increase in the number of males in employment in Scotland and the rest of Great Britain, respectively, from mid-1951 to the latest available date.
    Mr. J. Robertsonasked the Minister of Labour what was the increase in the number of women in employment in Scotland and the rest of Great Britain, respectively, from mid-1951 to the latest available date.
    Mr. Godber: A comparison of the estimated figures for 1951 and 1963 shows that the number of women in employment increased by 44,000 in Scotland and 849,000 in the rest of Great Britain. A similar comparison for males in employment shows a decrease of 33,000 in Scotland and an increase of 963,000 in the rest of Great Britain.
    Mr. Hannan: Is it not fantastic that these figures should exist? Are they not evidence of a very serious position, more serious than most people realise? What is the Prime Minister doing to fulfil the recent promises which have been made about the improvements that are to come to Scotland?
    Mr. Godber: These figures bear out the position which has been shown in a number of Questions there have been in recent weeks on this subject. It is a position about which all Ministers have expressed their concern. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the real problem is the basic problem of certain declining industries in Scotland, just as in certain areas of England, too. What we are seeking to do is to combat that. I think that the proposals, including the White Paper issued last autumn, go a very considerable way towards trying to help in this field.
    Miss Herbison: Surely the Minister is aware that we have been faced with these declining industries for many years and that we on this side of the House and the people in Scotland are tired of getting the excuse trotted out time after time that our position is due to declining industries? What have the Government been doing in the last twelve years to find jobs to take the place of those that we lose through declining industries? That is the problem which the Government have to solve.
    Mr. Godber: Yes. This is what the Government are seeking to do at present. Indeed, we have given assistance amounting to over £50 million under the Local Employment Act and, as announced in the White Paper last autumn, public service investment in Scotland is to be increased during the first two years of the plan from £100 million to £140 million. So we are trying to do what we can.
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Minister of Labour what was the increase in the number of boys in employment in Scotland and in the rest of Great Britain, respectively, between mid-1951 and the latest available date.
    Mr. J. Bennettasked the Minister of Labour what was the increase in the number of girls in employment in Scotland and the rest of Great Britain, respectively, from mid-1951 to the latest available date.
    Mr. Godber: Between mid-1951 and mid-1963 the number of girls in employment increased by 4,400 in Scotland and 140,400 in the rest of Great Britain. The number of boys decreased by 600 in Scotland and increased by 111,900 in the rest of Great Britain.
    Mr. Thomson: Are not these figures, particularly for boys, disgraceful, and do they not, together with the other figures which the Minister has been giving this afternoon, illustrate the intolerable degree of economic injustice that is taking place between one part of the United Kingdom and another? When will the Government do something drastic about this?
    Mr. Godber: I have been endeavouring to point out in reply to other Questions the steps that the Government are taking in seeking to establish new employment and by the provision of advance factories. These and other steps are helping to provide a number of new types of industry. When these are established, I hope they will grow.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that each of his predecessors in the past 10 years has been confronted with similar figures, although not nearly so bad, and that each has given virtually the same answer? Despite their giving the same answer, is the right hon.

    971
    Gentleman aware that the trend continues and appears to be worsening? Is it not obvious that we know the cause of the trouble and that the only way to solve it is for the Government to take action so that we in Scotland may get rid of the constant draining away of our young people to the South?
    Mr. Godber: As I have pointed out, we have new proposals, as well as those referred to in the White Paper of last autumn, and we are endeavouring to solve this problem. We are also trying to develop advance factories which, in their turn, will be of help.
    Mr. Hannanasked the Minister of Labour what percentage of boys leaving school in Scotland entered apprenticeships in each of the last five years.
    Mr. Godber: They were 32·1 in 1959, 33·3 in 1960, 38·2 in 1961, 38·9 in 1962 and 37·9 in 1963.
    Mr. Hannan: Is the Minister aware that, though these figures are comparable with those in England and Wales, they still show a great need for an increase in the training for skills for our young people for the future? In view of the Newsom Report and other reports on training for skills, is the Minister satisfied with what is being done north of the Border to provide such training for our young people?
    Mr. Godber: In this sphere the figures for Scotland are more satisfactory than those in the rest of the country—the percentage of apprenticeships is somewhat higher there, I am glad to say. In relation to training for young people in general, I attach great importance to the Industrial Training Act, which got the Royal Assent last week. Once established the Act will enable us to give a much better start to young people both in apprenticeships and other types of youth training.
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Labour how many jobs have been lost in Scotland in the last four years; how many have been provided in the same period; and when it is expected that the level of unemployment will be comparable to that of the rest of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Godber: As my hon. Friend informed the hon. Gentleman in his
    972
    reply to his Question on 17th February, the only reliable and comprehensive figures of jobs lost and gained are those derived from changes in the numbers of employees in employment, which show an increase in Scotland of 21,700 between mid-1959 and mid-1963. I cannot forecast the level of unemployment at any particular time.
    Mr. Hamilton: Would the Minister agree that the figures show a net gain of about 5,000 new jobs per year, which is not anywhere near to the figure shown by the Government in their own White Paper on Central Scotland? In that White Paper a whole lot of assumptions are made on emigration and bringing down the rate of unemployment in Scotland nearer to the national average. Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government themselves estimate that a net gain of at least 10,000 new jobs a year is needed for the ten years between 1961 and 1972, and a net gain of 14,000 per year between 1971 and 1981? What additional measures do the Government intend to take to get anywhere near the figures they themselves produced?
    Mr. Godber: I have indicated in earlier replies today some of the things that the Government are doing, or are proposing to do in the future, in Scotland. In particular, I attach considerable importance to the advance factories, which are getting under way. Considerably more are being introduced now, and I hope that they will have a good effect. In addition, there is the good underlying trend of employment over the country as a whole, including Scotland, which is much healthier than it was some time ago.
    Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend consider as part of his Departmental responsibility issuing a comprehensive statement on what has been achieved in employment in the areas that have special Government attention? Would it not be a very good idea for his Department to show what tremendous progress we have made on the North-East Coast?
    Mr. Godber: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment and I should certainly like to look at what she has suggested. I am sure that there

    973
    is a very good picture to show generally, when considered against the problem involved.
    Dr. Bray: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his statement that he cannot make a forecast of levels of unemployment, both because it rather makes nonsense about what has been said about making these forecasts and because the level of unemployment is an extremely important factor for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider in the regulation of the economy? How can the right hon. Gentleman control the economy if the Minister of Labour does not know what the level of labour will be?
    Mr. Godber: I do get in touch with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer from time to time, but I do not propose to try to establish his targets. What matters is getting people into jobs and not trying to arouse any hopes that one may not be able to fulfil. Much the more important thing is to create the jobs, and that is what we are seeking to do.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has mentioned several times this afternoon the prospects of advance factories? Does he not recollect that at least for 10 years the present Government have been opposed to advance factories, and that it is only the imminence of a General Election which has converted them?
    Mr. Godber: No, I cannot accept that suggestion. In fact, these advance factories have been planned and have been going ahead for some considerable time.
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the number of boys and girls under 18 years who were unemployed in Scotland for more than eight weeks has increased more than three-fold in the last 12 years, and that this was a greater increase than in any other region; and, in view of this widening difference between Scotland and the rest of the country, what special measures he intends to take to deal with the problem.
    Mr. Godber: I am greatly concerned about this problem. The Government are taking special measures to raise the general level of employment in Scot-
    974
    land. I am convinced that this is the best way of dealing with the problem of unemployment among young people.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the young people who are currently unemployed in Scotland will be very gratified that he is concerned about the situation?

    Sculthorpe Air Base
    Mr. Hiltonasked the Minister of Labour what action he is taking to provide alternative employment for the civilians at present employed at Sculthorpe air base in Norfolk which is soon to be vacated by United States Forces.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Our local officers are in touch with the responsible authorities and will do everything possible to assist any of the workpeople affected who seek their help in finding alternative employment.
    Mr. Hilton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that several hundred civilians are employed at this base, which is soon to be given up by the United States Forces? Is he aware that there is no alternative employment in this rural area for these civilians and that the estimated value of the buildings, houses, equipment and so on at the base is between £60 and £80 million If the Air Ministry does not intend to use the base, which is a ready-made industrial site, will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to have early discussions with his colleagues, since it is no good waiting until these people are unemployed before action is taken?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Although I recognise the concern which must be felt by those who may lose their employment, we do not think that the closure will create any long-tern unemployment in the area. Despite that I note what the hon. Gentleman says and I will see that it is brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade.

    Labour Attachés
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Minister of Labour how many labour attachés are now serving overseas; what were the comparable figures five years ago, and 10 years ago; and whether he plans to increase these appointments.
    Mr. Godber: There are now 18 labour attachés and labour advisers serving overseas. There were 19 in 1959 and 18 in 1954. A vacant post in South America will be filled shortly and a new post is to be established in East Africa. An assistant is to be appointed to the labour adviser in West Africa.
    Mr. Prentice: Are not these figures very small, and would the Minister not agree from his experience at the Foreign Office that labour attachés are extremely valuable and often have contacts in a country which the embassy itself does not have? Now that the whole question of representation is being reviewed, in the light of the Plowden Report, will the right hon. Gentleman consider increasing the number of labour attachés?
    Mr. Godber: I agree that labour attachés play a valuable part in diplomatic representations and, as I have indicated, we are making certain marginal increases in their numbers. I would like to think again about the point the hon. Gentleman has raised, and I can assure him that, where a real need is shown, I will look at the matter sympathetically.

    Wages
    Mr. K. Lewisasked the Minister of Labour what is the percentage rise in wage rates, taking into account reduced hours of working, for the period since October 1963.
    Mr. Godber: It is estimated that the index of hourly wage rates has increased by about 2¾ per cent. between the end of October, 1963, and the middle of February, 1964.
    Mr. Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is a very satisfactory figure when related to the "guiding light", and since the cost of living in the same period has gone up by about 1 per cent., the figure is even more satisfactory when one realises that wage rates are ahead of the cost of living?
    Mr. Godber: I would agree with the latter part of my hon. Friend's question in that it is satisfactory that wage rates should keep ahead of the cost of living. I am not quite so sure that I am as happy about the first part because of the short period over which it has taken place. However, if one equates it with the period January, 1963, to
    976
    January, 1964, the annual rise is about 4½ per cent., which is within the rate of increase in productivity during that period.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Is it not significant that these wage increases have taken place in the pre-election period, when employers and the Government want to keep the workers sweet? If this is not the case, why did the Government reject the 3 per cent. wage claim of the nurses and others two years ago?
    Mr. Godber: The hon. Member will be aware that there are other reasons relating to the economy and that the position is very different now from what it was then. But, if the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Government are seeking to keep the workers sweet, he should occupy my job for a little while and then he will realise that the workers do not always say that.
    Mr. Gunter: If the Minister finds satisfaction in wage rates having taken this trend since January, 1963, what is all the row with the postmen for; why not give them what they want?
    Mr. Godber: The subject of postmen does not arise on this Question.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: How do the figures compare with the period a year ago and with 1951, when the party opposite were in power?
    Mr. Godber: I have given the comparison for the period a year ago. I am afraid that I do not have the other figures available. However, I think that they are generally quite well known.

    Foreign Girls (Au Pair Arrangements)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Labour if he will take steps to ensure, through the grant of labour permits, that foreign girls working as au pairs are not exploited as cheap labour.
    Mr. Whitelaw: No, Sir, Labour permits are issued for full-time regular employment. They are not suitable for an au pair arrangement where the girl comes to this country primarily to learn the language and live for a while as a member of a British family. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is responsible for au pair arrangements, has recently had a revised booklet prepared

    977
    in several languages which, he hopes, will help to prevent misunderstanding and abuses.
    Mr. Rankin: While recognising and accepting what the hon. Gentleman has said, is it not a fact that once the Home Office grants a girl a permit to come to this country, from then on it takes no interest in her? Is he aware that these girls must find jobs for themselves and that when they find jobs they have no stable agreements and are liable to instant discharge without reason? Is he further aware that, because of the language difficulties which many of the girls have, they are thus often placed in very precarious situations? Would the hon. Gentleman not consider trying to find a scheme whereby, when the Home Office grants permits, the Ministry of Labour then takes some interest in these girls when they come to this country?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates that it is of the very essence of an au pair arrangement that it is not a job and that, therefore, it is not subject to a labour permit. Nevertheless, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I must repeat, however, that a labour permit is not appropriate for au pair arrangements because these arrangements do not constitute an employer-employee relationship.
    Mr. Rankin: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that these girls come to Britain for a double purpose, to study and to work, and that their work is part and parcel of their way of being able to study in this country? Will the Parliamentary Secretary urge his right hon. Friends to show more interest in these girls when they come here?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Whatever may be the purpose of the girls in coming here, it is not for the purpose of taking up a job.

    Earnings
    Mr. K. Lewisasked the Minister of Labour whether it is proposed to extend the scope of the half-yearly inquiry into the average earnings of manual workers so as to bring more industries within its scope.
    Mr. Godber: I am looking into the possibility of establishing a regular earnings inquiry in the distributive trades.
    Mr. Lewis: I understand that in the present figures that the Minister takes, industries like transport and agriculture are not included. I should have thought that one would have got a more realistic figure if the earnings were taken further across the board. Would my right hon. Friend look at that suggestion? Further, can he tell me what he, or his Department, thinks would be the difference in the present earnings figure if it had been taker across a wider field?
    Mr. Godber: It is difficult to give any precise indication on the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. On his first point, although we have inquiries covering a very wide number of industries, there are also certain other industries—such as agriculture, coal mining, railways and docks—that are not specifically covered but which give us certain information. This is made available from time to time and published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette. We therefore have a fair coverage across the field.

    Greenock—Port Glasgow
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Minister of Labour what were the average monthly percentages of unemployed registered in the Greenock—Port Glasgow area in the years 1961, 1962, and 1963, respectively; and what is the average monthly figure so far for 1964.
    Mr. Whitelaw: They were 7·4 per cent. for 1961, 7·2 per cent. for 1962, 8·5 per cent. for 1963 and 7·4 per cent. for January to February this year.
    Dr. Mabon: In view of the Government's failure to make progress with this very urgent problem, can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House of his intentions in relation to industrial retraining in the area? Is he aware that he is proposing to provide far too small a service for the number of unemployed, and we are completely at sea about the numbers to be introduced in these courses. Can the Minister give us some information on the subject?
    Mr. Whitelaw: We shall certainly consider the kind of training to be provided at the new centre in Port Glasgow in relation to the jobs becoming available in the area. I will certainly look

    979
    at that matter again for the hon. Member. Training will be provided in the engineering and building trades.

    Building Workers (London Area)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Labour how many building workers are registered as unemployed in the London area.
    Mr. Whitelaw: At 10th February, 7,273 workers whose last employment was in the construction industry were registered as unemployed in the Greater London area.
    Mr. Lipton: With so many thousands of building workers out of work, and so many other thousands employed on office building and luxury and other inessential building, how and when will the Government ever tackle the real problem of housing people now living in. London in conditions that are hardly fit for animals? When do the Government intend to sit up and take notice of the desperate situation now existing in London, and in quite a number of other places, at the present time?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Without in any way commenting on the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question—which is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government—I must say that the really important item is the number of skilled workers. There can be no doubt, and it is widely accepted, that the shortage of skilled workers in the industry will become acute during the year, and every possible means of adding to the labour force will be fully justified.

    Training Officer Course, Bristol
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Minister of Labour what has been the response to date to his appeal to industry to support the course being organised for training officers by the British Association for Commercial and Industrial Education in Bristol in May.
    Mr. Godber: There has been a heavy over-application for this course, which is being organised jointly by B.A.C.I.E., the Institute of Personnel Management, the Industrial Training Council and the City and Guilds Institute.
    Mr. Prentice: While I welcome what the Minister has just said, may I ask what further steps he is taking to enlarge the operation of the course? Will he agree that lack of skilled training officers is likely to be a bottleneck in expansion of industrial training, and that something on a big scale is needed that may lead to some hundreds of courses every year? What plans are now being made to prepare for that sort of operation?
    Mr. Godber: The words used by the hon. Gentleman in the earlier part of his supplementary question seem to me to be a paraphrase of something I said during the Committee stage of the Industrial Training Bill. We both agree on the need for more provision, and I am very glad that this time there has been over-application for the course. While I am looking at the whole position, we must see as the course goes along what steps we can take, or need to take. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman will remember that this particular course was heavily subsidised by my Ministry, and I believe that, in general, industry should bear the cost itself.

    Industrial Training Act
    Mr. Bourne-Artonasked the Minister of Labour what he is doing to give effect to the Industrial Training Act.
    Mr. Godber: I have circulated to the interested industrial organisations draft schedules setting out the activities which I propose should be covered by Industrial Training Boards for the engineering and construction industries, and I am publicising these definitions. I shall take into account any views which these organisations may have before making Industrial Training Orders for these two industries. I shall be circulating similar drafts for the iron and steel and wool textiles industries in the near future. I am happy to inform the House that Sir John Hunter has agreed to become Chairman of the Central Training Council which I hope to set up next month.
    Mr. Bourne-Arton: Will my right hon. Friend accept how helpful that will be to the North-East, and how welcome it will be particularly to the North-East, to hear that Sir John Hunter has agreed to serve? Will my right hon. Friend accept the

    981
    grateful thanks of those of us who have been pressing this sort of action upon him, and will he keep up the good work?
    Mr. Godber: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We shall certainly endeavour to keep up the good work.
    Mr. Prentice: The right hon. Gentleman has told the House that he is circulating a draft of his definition of the industries for the two boards. Can he give a forecast of how long it will be before he can produce an industrial training order in relation to these two industries? What does he expect the timing to be before the first boards are appointed? Secondly, what steps is he taking to build up a larger team at the centre to provide central planning for this whole operation? Can he say how the present size of his training division compares with what it was a year ago?
    Mr. Godber: I should not like to tie myself down specifically in answering the first part of that supplementary question. I have asked for representations to come back to me on these definitions by 3rd April in respect of the construction industry and by 10th April in respect of the engineering industry. I am seeking to make progress as quickly as I can. I should not like to say specifically how soon thereafter I can set up these boards.
    As to the other part of the supplementary question, the training branch has been increased considerably and it is certainly working at full pressure at present. We have engaged a number of extra people, but I could not give the figure without notice.

    Mexborough
    Mr. Wainwrightasked the Minister of Labour if he will give the number of unemployed registered in the Mexborough Employment Exchange area at the latest available date.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Nine hundred and nine on 10th February.
    Mr. Wainwright: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the figures for this district are rather alarming? Could he say how many of these men were employed at Messrs. Baker and Bessemer? Is he not aware that Messrs. Baker and Bessemer will close down on the 28th
    982
    of this month, which will swell the numbers of unemployed by another 200 or 300? Does he not know that the unemployed men in this district are disgusted at the complacency which he and his right hon. Friend are showing? Will he consult the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development with a view to getting some industries into this area and taking over this vacant site?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Of the 853 discharged by Messrs. Baker and Bessemer, 86 men and 12 women are registered as unemployed at Mexborough Employment Exchange and 18 men are registered at other nearby offices. As for the remainder who will lose their jobs in the melting shop, their prospects of employment are reasonably good. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no hint of complacency so far as my right hon. Friend or I myself are concerned. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development will take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said about getting new industry into the area.

  SOLICITORS (REGISTRY OF LEASES)
  Mr. W. Yatesasked the Attorney-General if I e will introduce legislation so that people whose solicitors fail to register a lease, resulting in loss of their livelihood, can receive redress at law.
  The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson):A person who has suffered loss as a result of his solicitor's failure to exercise due skill and care has a remedy under the present law, and there does not appear to be any need for legislation.
  Mr. Yates: Although I am aware that people of very small means can apply for legal aid, would my right hon. and learned Friend examine again at a later date the whole problem which would arise should a person fail in the case which I have in mind and of which my right hon. and learned Friend has details?
  The Attorney-General: That question seems to raise the question of legal aid. Of course, I shall be delighted to examine au case if my hon. Friend will send me details of what he has in mind.

  "FANNY HILL" (PROSECUTION COSTS)
  Mr. Abseasked the Attorney-General what were the costs incurred by the prosecution in the recent proceedings under the Obscene Publications Act involving the book "Fanny Hill".
  The Attorney-General: £296 3s.
  Mr. Abse: Does the Attorney-General believe that it is in the interests of the taxpayer that money should be wasted in this way with no final determination being made upon the case? In view of the fact that this prosecution under a particular Section appears to have been inspired by spleen as a result of failure in the "Lady Chatterley" case, and in view of the public concern, does he not think it would be desirable, if the Director of Public Prosecutions has to behave as a nanny to the nation, that he should take, proceedings in the High Court? If the Director of Public Prosecutions is to behave as a nanny to the nation and take proceedings against this elegant eighteenth century book, will the Attorney-General tell us whether these proceedings will involve the five copies of the book which are in the Library of the House of Commons, which scores of Members are waiting to see?
  The Attorney-General: I am sure that nobody would charge the late Director of Public Prosecutions with having instituted any proceedings out of spleen or in consequence of any other prosecution having failed. The Director of Public Prosecutions has a duty to enforce the law which has been laid down by this House. This House has provided alternative methods, either the preventive procedure of forfeiture before a book gets into general circulation, or a charge under Section 2, which only affects the publication to a particular person and the tendency of that work to corrupt that individual. Of course, the House will be aware that the courts have recently held that to publish to a police officer, who is in a sense wrapped in moral asbestos, may create very great difficulties for the prosecution. There are difficulties in deciding whether to proceed under Section 2 or Section 3, and I recognise this fact. I have not had the advantage of inspecting
  984
  the works which are at present in the Library of the House, but there is a very great difference between the 3s. 6d. Penguin edition and the other editions which have been published and which have been substantially expurgated.
  Sir Knox Cunningham: Would my right hon. and learned Friend make certain that all prosecutions are carried out according to the law and that influence is not used by Members of this House in the House on the Director of Public Prosecutions in discharging his duty?
  The Attorney-General: I certainly think that is the true position, and I am sure all hon. Members recognise this.
  Mr. M. Foot: Are we to take it from the Attorney-General's absurd reply that Members of Parliament are also wrapped in moral asbestos?
  The Attorney-General: No, I was only saying that I have not had the advantage of discovering which of the different editions Members of this House would perhaps be reading if they went to the Library.
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there are hundreds of thousands of parents of teen-aged children who think that the £296 was very well spent?

  UNDEFENDED DIVORCE CASES
  Mr. Abseasked the Attorney-General how far the inquiry now considering whether undefended divorces may be tried in county courts has proceeded; and, in view of the heavy burden on legal aid funds resulting from undefended divorces being taken only in the High Court, whether the conclusion of the inquiry may be expedited.
  The Attorney-General: My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is still considering this matter.
  Mr. Abse: Will the Attorney-General give an assurance that the long consideration is not due in any way to any vested interest on the part of the Bar, since there is widespread public concern at the fact that the cost of divorces is unnecessarily high? Does he not think that, irrespective of the Bar's interests, it would

  985
  be far more desirable if some of the money which has been spent on divorces were deployed not in wrecking marriages but in healing them? Does the Attorney-General not recognise that it would be more profitable to give some of this money to the Marriage Guidance Council and to probation officers, instead of squandering it on young barristers who may think they have a vested interest in the conduct of divorce cases in the High Court?
  The Attorney-General: Not only members of the Bar but the solicitors' profession are engaged in undefended divorces" and I think the principle of both professions is that they should only have fair remuneration for work done. That is all that either profession requires or desires.
  This is a difficult matter. I appreciate the arguments in favour of sending these cases to the county court. On the other hand, one must remember that on three occasions in the past the question of whether divorce cases should be taken in the High Court has been examined. It was examined by the Gorell Commission in 1912, by the Denning Committee in 1946 and by the Morton Commission in 1956. Those two Royal Commissions and the other Committee all came to the unanimous conclusion that the dissolution of marriage was of such high interest to the State that these cases ought to be undertaken by the High Court. It is with those matters, that have to be balanced on both sides, that my noble Friend is concerned.
  Mr. Bourne-Arton: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the very strong and wide body of opinion throughout the country that, if the most solemn contract of a person's life is to be ended, it should be done with great solemnity and dignity and that, without disrespect to the county courts, it is far too grave a matter to be sandwiched between the collection of a couple of bad debts?
  The Attorney-General: It was, of course, upon the basis of the importance of the question that the Royal Commissions and the Committee came to their conclusions. The status of individuals and, possibly, the status of children is involved. It is a matter of substance
  986
  which requires very careful consideration. My noble Friend is considering it.
  Mr. Abse: Does the Attorney-General really think that the solemnity of marriage is in any way affected if a marriage is dissolved by someone in a black robe instead of in a red one? He must know quite well that it is not and that, since county court judges are acting as commissioners, that is all there is to it, and it is just a nice distinction. Is it not time that we got rid of some of the humbug; surrounding the whole procedure in connection with divorce and allowed county court judges at least, who are already considering questions of the interests of children, to be able to do this work so that we could reduce fundamentally some of the costs involved in the antiquated paraphernalia which now goes on?
  The Attorney-General: I have not said that there are not arguments both ways. There certainly are, and they have been expressed from both sides of the House. As I have said, my noble Friend is considering them.

  NUCLEAR TESTS
  Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what study he has made of recent developments of techniques for detecting underground nuclear test explosions, with a view to making new proposals for an agreement to ban such tests.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Robert Mathew): We have a research programme which is pursuing all aspects of the detection and identification of underground tests. However, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 12th March, there are no developments in the technique of detecting and indentifying underground nuclear explosions which would justify changing the Western position with respect to on-site inspections.
  Mr. Allaun: In view of the seven months' delay since the August agreement to ban atmospheric tests, will the hon. Gentleman deny categorically that there is any tacit understanding among the three Governments to "knock into

  987
  touch", to withhold any search for an agreement, until after the presidential elections in November?
  Mr. Mathew: I think that the hon. Gentleman has in mind certain Press reports. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science explained to the House on 10th March, those reports are misleading—
  Mr. Allaun: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not refer to any Press reports about detection tests. I was referring to something quite different.
  Mr. Speaker: That does not raise a point of order. If the Minister presumes that the hon. Gentleman has something in mind, I cannot stop him.
  Mr. Allaun: There is no relation.
  Mr. Lipton: The Minister has got to read his brief.

  SOUTH AFRICA (HELICOPTERS)
  Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the proposed export to South Africa of Wasp helicopters, it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government not to export arms to that country if they could be used to suppress the African population.
  Mr. Mathew: As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation explained in a Written Answer on 2nd March, these helicopters are designed to carry only naval weapons. They are normal equipment for the "Whitby" class anti-submarine frigates and other vessels which we have supplied to South Africa under the terms of the Simonstown Agreement. Their supply is thus in accordance with our policy as stated in the United Nations, that we will not export to South Africa arms which would enable the policy of apartheid to be enforced.
  Mrs. Castle: But is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there is no mention whatever of helicopters in the Simonstown Agreement? Is he aware also that these helicopters, even though they are naval aircraft, can quite easily be equipped with machine guns for the
  988
  purpose of suppressing the African population, and is he further aware that our own Navy is short of helicopters and is waiting for them? What on earth is the sense of our exporting to South Africa helicopters which we need for our own forces, when we cannot trust the South African Government with instruments of suppression of this kind?
  Mr. Mathew: The answer to the hon. Lady is that these helicopters were specifically designed for use in an antisubmarine torpedo-carrying rôle. The specifications make them unsuitable for use in a police rôle. It is true that the South African Government have bought aircraft of other types from other countries. As regards fitting the Westland Wasp helicopter with machine guns, my right hon. Friend explained on 2nd March that these helicopters are not designed to carry machine guns.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: Will my hon. Friend say whether machine guns have ever been fitted to any type of helicopter?
  Mr. Mathew: Not to my knowledge.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: The hon. Gentleman constantly uses the word "designed". Does he mean to hold that these aircraft cannot be adapted for use in various ways not only with machine guns but in other ways, with small bombs and such things, for possible use for internal matters? Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle)—of which the Prime Minister said he wanted notice the last time it was asked—and say whether or not helicopters are mentioned in the schedule to the Simonstown Agreement?
  Mr. Mathew: In reply to the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, we agreed to supply, as I think he knows, 18 new vessels—four frigates, four seaward defence boats and 10 minesweepers—under the Simonstown Agreement. As regards whether it is possible or not to fit them with other weapons, the position is that these are helicopters supplied for a specific rôle; they are a reasonable complement for the frigates which the South African Government acquired under the agreement, and they are not equipped to carry machine guns.
  Mr. Mayhew: Did we ask for assurances that they would not be used for internal purposes?
  Mr. Mathew: Once they pass into the possession of the South African Government, presumably, we have no further control. We are supplying these aircraft under the agreement, which was in the interests of the defence of this country and of South Africa, and it has nothing to do with any police rôle whatever.
  Mr. Mayhew: Is it not complete hyprocrisy to say to the House that these helicopters are not in the Simonstown Agreement, that they can in practice be used for internal purposes, and that no effort was made to get an assurance from the Government that they would not be used in that rôle?
  Mr. Mathew: The hon. Gentleman must listen to what I say. I never said that they could be so used in practice. They are supplied for a specific defence rôle to the South African Government under the agreement, and they have nothing whatever to do with police operations or anything of that sort. We have agreed in the United Nations that we will not export arms to South Africa which could enable the policy of apartheid to be enforced, and we are keeping to that agreement.
  Mr. F. M. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, may I call to your mind that, not very long ago, you informed me, in your discretion, that to accuse another hon. Member of an act of hypocrisy was out of order in the House, and I was asked to withdraw? Has that Ruling been changed or is it still in force today?
  Mr. Speaker: It sounds very odd, to my recollection, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the precise wording may not be so important as the context in the circumstances. I shall have to refresh my memory on what he says. I am not aware of anything out of order being said in this instance.
  Mr. Brockway: Apart from the question of arming these helicopters, is it not the case that the South African Government are using helicopters for the purpose of observation against opponents of
  990
  apartheid, particularly on the frontier of the High Commission Territories? Could not these helicopters easily be used for that kind of purpose?
  Mr. Mathew: I think that I have dealt with the latter part of the supplementary question quite clearly. On the first part, we have no knowledge of this. That is quite another question. The hon. Gentleman should put a Question on the Order Paper—if he can get it in order.

CYPRUS
The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I promised to keep the House informed of further developments in Cyprus.
In the last few days the situation on the island has been much calmer, though there have continued to be minor incidents. A cease-fire was negotiated at Ktima, which has eased the position there. There is, of course, still widespread tension, particularly in Nicosia.
Early on Friday, the Turkish Government issues a warning that unless the attacks upon the Turkish-Cypriot community ceased, they might have to exercise their right of intervention under the Treaty of Guarantee.
That night, the Security Council, by a unanimous vote, reaffirmed its earlier resolution end once again called upon all concerned to refrain from action which would worsen the situation.
At the same time, the Secretary-General announced that substantial progress had been made in the formation of the international force. Contingents have been promised by four countries. Canada has undertaken to provide about 1,000 men, of which the advance party has already arrived in Cyprus. Sweden has agreed to send one battalion and an armoured car squadron. The Republic of Ireland and Finland have also offered to contribute a battalion each.
We warmly welcome this helpful response and we are most anxious that everything should be done to hasten the arrival of these contingents, so that the international force may be brought into effective operation at the earliest possible moment. We are in close touch with the

991
Secretary-General and the other Governments concerned about this matter and about the choice of a mediator, to whose early appointment we attach great importance.
Mr. Gordon Walker: Is the Secretary of State aware how glad we all are about the relaxation which has come about since last Friday, although we realise that the position is still tense and difficult and that we must all be careful of what we say at such a moment'? Is he further aware that this is an example of the way in which the United Nations can act with very great vigour and speed to settle a dispute which, without the United Nations, looked absolutely impossible of settlement and as if it was getting out of hand?
How soon does the right hon. Gentleman expect the forces from Sweden, Finland and the Republic of Ireland to arrive? Does he agree that not only is the speed at which these troops arrive important, but also their terms of reference? It is very important that the United Nations forces, of which our men form a part, shall not serve under the same rather humiliating terms of reference under which our men are serving, although we are all full of admiration for their splendid conduct in this difficult situation. Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to say how soon we will be able to make a substantial reduction in the number of British troops in the island?
Mr. Sandys: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a firm answer on the question of the speed with which these troops can be brought into operation, and the force into being. We hope that this can be effected quickly. But we fear, at the moment, that there will be certain delays among these countries, with the exception of Canada, which is already prepared to send her force to Cyprus as other countries are ready to do the same.
I entirely share the right hon. Gentleman's view as to the importance of getting clear and effective terms of reference, which will enable the force to discharge its task in accordance with the resolution and intentions of the United Nations. This is a matter which is now
992
under very active discussion with the Secretary-General and the other countries concerned.
Mr. F. M. Bennett: We must all welcome the United Nations initiative in this matter, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that the sole purpose of the United Nations force, pending mediation, is to preserve law and order and to prevent violence in the island? Will he do his best to ensure that the breathing space thus gained will not be used to advance the political aims of one section of the community?
Mr. Sandys: The task of the force is to stop the fighting, to help to preserve law and order, and to act with complete impartiality.
Mr. Grimond: First, can the Secretary of State say whether, until the full terms of reference are decided, the United Nations force will co-operate with or recognise the Greek security forces? Secondly, can he say something about the terms of reference of the mediator? Will he act under terms still to be settled in the United Nations? Does the right hon. Gentleman envisage a recall of the original conference under which the present Constitution of Cyprus was set up?
Mr. Sandys: The terms of reference of the mediator will have to be settled by the Secretary-General in agreement with the other countries concerned.
The force, in my view, cannot come into being, and cannot begin to operate, until its terms of reference are settled. Therefore, I do not think that the first question would arise.
Mr. W. Yates: My right hon. Friend realises that under the Zurich Agreement there are Turkish military forces in the island, who disobeyed the commander's instructions and have taken the St. Hilarion Pass, and also Greek forces in the island? What is my right hon. Friend going to propose about these troops? In view of the United Nations undertaking, would it not be advisable to consider that those Greek troops should return to Greece and the Turkish troops to Turkey? At the same time, Britain would get the good will of the Cypriot people by withdrawing to her sovereign bases.
Mr. Sandys: If everybody left there would be a complete vacuum.
Mr. Warbey: Can the Secretary of State say whether his public bullying of the Secretary-General of the United Nations last Thursday afternoon was approved by the Foreign Secretary and whether, when he delivered that public lecture to the world's No. 1 civil servant, he was aware that the British and American Governments had already undertaken between them to supply 3 million dollars towards the cost of the Cyprus peacekeeping force?
May we have an assurance that in future the relations between this country and the United Nations will be conducted by the Foreign Secretary and not by the right hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Sandys: I was fully aware of all the facts and acted in full accord with my colleagues.
Sir P. Agnew: Would my right hon. Friend agree that, as well as there being terms of reference, it is necessary that the United Nations troops should have definite orders about what they are allowed to do and what they are trying to achieve? Therefore, would my right hon. Friend arrange for a copy of the orders to the United Nations commander of the forces to be placed in the Library as soon as they are known?
Mr. Sandys: I think that one must distinguish between terms of reference which are, so to speak, a continuing instruction, and orders which may be issued from time to time. When it comes to the terms of reference, I will see that they are placed in the Library, as my hon. Friend requests.
Mr. Bottomley: Is it not heartening that it should be Canada that first gives assistance to British troops to help them keep peace in Cyprus? Can the Secretary of State say why he did not from the very beginning seek Commonwealth assistance in the matter?
Mr. Sandys: I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would not all the time, every day, try to be more Commonwealth-minded than I am. From the very start we approached Canada as a member of N.A.T.O.
Mr. Gower: As the units which compose the United Nations force will have
994
to undertake what must be in many cases an invidious and difficult task, can my right hon. Friend say whether, if some of them, unfortunately, lose their lives, any arrangements have been made internationally so that their next-of-kin can be compensated, whether that has to be a matter for the United Nations as a body, or whether it has to be done by the country which sends the troops there?
Mr. Sandys: Without notice, I could not give an answer to that question.
Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand that this the best that the United Nations can do? Are only four countries to make a contribution? Is not the contribution comparatively small? If British troops are to remain in Cyprus—and we have as yet very little information from the right hon. Gentleman about a possible reduction—why cannot some of the N.A.T.O. countries also make a contribution to the peace-keeping force?
Mr. Sandys: I must say that I have a great deal of sympathy with the feelings which inspire the right hon. Gentleman's question. As he knows, of course, we had virtually got a N.A.T.O. force ready and available to do this job, but it was not acceptable to one of the parties, and, therefore, could not be used.
I think that, on the other hand, we must welcome the response, though it is not as great as we would have hoped, that has been forthcoming to the Secretary-General's appeal for contributions, and we must hope that further contributions will be forthcoming from other countries, these four countries having given a lead.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot go further on this now.

COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL
Commitee to consider of increasing the rate of the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General under the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, 1957, Tomorrow.—[Mr. Selwyn Lloyd.]

TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE IN INDUSTRY (REDUNDANCY)
3.43 p.m.
Mr. Norman Dodds: I beg to move,
That this House, appreciating the human problems caused by technological change in industry, urges Her Majesty's Government, in co-operation with employers and trade unions, to take steps to alleviate any consequential hardship to individuals by means of manpower planning and research, development of the services provided by employment exchanges schemes of training and retraining and financial provision for redundancy.
During nearly 19 years as a Member of Parliament for a constituency in the south-east of England, which is so frequently referred to as a land flowing with honey, I have heard in the last few months far more references to redundancy than I did in the previous 18 years. On the part of the people throughout the South-East at least, there is a great awareness of the changes that are taking place, and the threat of redundancy hangs over everyone's head.
During the last few months firms such as Braby's, Thames Ammunition Works, Woolwich Arsenal—belonging to the Government—the G.E.C. and, more recently, International Computers and Tabulators Ltd. have all had their redundancy troubles. In addition, we have had several programmes on television showing what computers will do. We have had the statement of the Leader of the Opposition who has told us that over the next few years 10 million new jobs will be required. As it is known that out of all the scientists who have ever lived 95 per cent. are living today, there is, as a result of this great change, a feeling of insecurity.
Recently, International Computers and Tabulators Ltd. sent a notice to all its employees about forthcoming closures. One paragraph of the notice read:
"We shall be rationalising production by closing some factories and concentrating production in others. In so doing the company is following the general tendency of British industry to concentrate production in a smaller number of modern and efficient units."
In my constituency the firm of Braby's—previously looked upon by all as the sort of organisation that one could join on leaving school and depend upon it that it would be there until the end of one's working days—has closed
996
down a modern factory. The tendency has continued that where there were six factories throughout the land the number is being reduced to five.
It is possible that if I had asked the Ministry of Labour what has happened in that case, the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary would, no doubt, have been able to say that most of the workers have got other employment. But if I were to ask the Ministry what were the lessons to be learned from such a closure, I doubt very much whether we should get any information about what has happened to the workers even though they have got other jobs.
I want later in my speech to bring home, I hope, to the Ministry of Labour, in connection with the sudden cancellation of a Government order for Blue Water missiles, that there has been an inquiry by a research team from Cambridge which has looked into what has happened to a high percentage of 750 adult workers from Stevenage who have left their jobs. I have in mind that sort of lesson when I ask that the Ministry of Labour should not just be content to find that men have found other work, but should discover what has been their experience in the process of looking for other work and how so many of them have a much worse deal as a consequence of having to change their jobs when redundancy occurs.
There seems to be a need for frankness and firmness about redundancy and the prospects for the future. I suggest that the people have a right to know just what is going on. It seems that the Government and the bulk of the employers have failed to present a coherent policy for redundancy. But this, I submit, does not exonerate the trade unions from some responsibility for letting the subject go by default.
In America, where there have been some remarkable agreements on this sort of thing, agreement was obtained not by the Government but largely through the militancy of the trade unions. It seems that the great difficulty which presents itself today in formulating any schemes is that, as I accept, redundancy is difficult to identify. Therefore, I suggest that we need much more intensive research, and there is, I further suggest, little time to do it.

997
I know that the Ministry of Labour has issued a number of pamphlets from time to time—I am sure that they have been appreciated—but very much more is needed now than pamphlets. Redundancy may be for some only a temporary inconvenience, while for others it can be a social upheaval and even cause distress and misery. Under modern conditions redundancy is in many ways harder to bear than the long stretches of unemployment that were such an unfortunate feature of the 1930s. It seems that misery is easier to bear when there is meanness and squalor around, and that it can be unbearable in an affluent society.
On 22nd February, 1964, the Economist said:
"Among the first of all needs for Britain is an efficient system to encourage people to move out of industries in which the demand for labour is declining, into jobs where men are needed.
Economic and social considerations together make it imperative that they should be adequately paid while they are suffering disturbance."
Efforts have been made to bring in the necessary legislation to provide severance pay for redundant workers. Much thought has been given to this matter by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond), and he has had wonderful support from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. J. Silverman) and other hon. Members. One cannot, however, ignore the fact that widely differing views are held about severance pay. The British Employers' Confederation said that provision for severance payments should be on a voluntary basis, and that legislation might discourage mobility of labour, but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester has demolished that argument.
The Trades Union Congress argues that priority should be given to increasing National Insurance benefits, and that if there are to be severance payments it is vital that they should be paid as compensation for loss of office and prospects; and I support that view.
To quote the Economist again, when it criticised the Bill which my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester sought to introduce, it said that firms going into bankruptcy would sometimes
998
not have funds to meet their heavy obligations under the Bill. I suggest that that is ill-conceived criticism, as one can appreciate by considering the agreements which have been made in America by which contingency funds are set up on case of bankruptcy to deal with that very point. But even if the worst happens—and it is unlikely to happen in many cases—it will be a matter for the Government to deal with, and if the will to deal with it is there, no difficulty should be experienced in working out a satisfactory solution.
I think that my hon. Friend and those who support him will agree that severance pay is only a small part of the cover which should be provided for people declared redundant. The main object should be to provide fresh work as soon as possible, and to ensure that while that work is being provided the unfortunate individual suffers as little financial disturbance as possible. There are many aspects to be considered when dealing with this problem. There is the social uprooting which can be severely disturbing to any family, particularly if there are children. We must, therefore, ensure that in making redundancy arrangements the individual's housing problem is dealt with as well, because it is no use providing a man with a lob 50 or a 100 miles away from his family, which means that he has to keep two homes going.
It very often happens that in the areas where it is easiest to find jobs it is most difficult to find homes. A survey recently carried out by the Acton Society Trust showed that there is a profound objection to mobility if it involves an individual having to move his home. The conclusion reached by the survey is that it is better to take work to the worker than to move the worker to another district, though we all know that in many cases it cannot be avoided. What research are the Government doing into that aspect of the problem?
I support the demand for severance pay, but I assert that this is not the most important need. The fundamental need is to gat the redundant worker into a new job as quickly as possible, and to ensure that if he has a skill it is used to the best advantage. Because of the innumerable developments that are taking place, it is the worker with

999
the lower capacity who finds it the most difficult to get a new job, and prolonged periods of reundancy are likely to occur among older and unskilled men. For them there may be a need for rehabilitation training rather than the usual retraining, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell the House what plans the Minister of Labour has for dealing with the older and unskilled workers who may need that training.
To tackle the problem of redundancy with any hope of success, I suggest that the Government ought to consider bringing in a national policy on housing, embracing the needs of redundant workers, a plan to provide better social insurance benefits, a better plan for the location of industry, and a plan for the retraining of workers in new and changing skills. In short, what is needed is national economic planning if the problem is to be tackled properly.
Whether the Government bring in a national plan or not, it is their responsibility to cover all the aspects of the problem as part of their overall social and economic responsibility. But in saying that I do not want it to be thought that industry should not carry its share of the burden. It has most of the workers and it must play its part in dealing with the problem, but it will be up to the Government to ensure that backsliders do not avoid their responsibilities. Industry's contribution should supplement the State's responsibility for seeing that the economy is projected in the right direction.
Redundancy can cause bewilderment to workers and management alike, and perhaps some thought should be given to educating people in this respect. From my researches—and this is a fascinating subject—I have found that the Government, employers, and the trade unions, have so far been incredibly slow to react to the challenge of change. One cannot fail to be driven to that conclusion if one considers what has been done in other countries. I submit that if we wait until the changes are upon us we will make a mockery of our affluent society.
I know that other hon. Members have dealt with this subject with varying degrees of success. In 1955, my hon.
1000
Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) tried to introduce a Bill on automation and electronics. Being frustrated by the House in his efforts to do so, he published a booklet Automation—blessing or curse? Without casting reflections on the ability of the Parliamentary Secretary or of the present Minister of Labour, I regret that my hon. Friend has not been at the Ministry since 1955. I suggest that if he had been, we would have had a better story to tell today. But he will probably get his opportunity before long.
There seems to have been a regrettable lack of thought and action in respect of apprenticeships and training schools for industrial purposes, but we now have a belated Government move, in the Industrial Training Act, which must be welcomed. However, very little seems to have been done in connection with the problem of retraining men in their forties and fifties. Some of these men possess skills which have become outdated, and I should like to know what proposals the Ministry has for training these men and developing the present rather limited ideas on the matter. I have read all the Questions which have been asked in the House on this subject, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us if anything is known on this subject which we have not yet been told.
A working party was recently set up to study the manpower situation—to find out more about the shortage of skilled labour, the need for more training courses, and for some control over the location of industry. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to make a statement today telling us what stage we have reached in this connection, and whether he is satisfied that everything that might be done is being done. Can there be a solution of this problem without Government action? Over and over again we come back to the question of the need for a national policy—a need which governs so many other aspects of our national way of life.
One of our great weaknesses is the almost complete lack of provision for adult workers to enter other skilled trades and, even worse, the lack of appreciation of any need for a new approach in this matter, with special provision being made. Ministry of Labour documents

1001
seem to show that all too often this problem is regarded as similar to the problem of training young workers. With the changes which are now taking place in industry the training of adults is probably going to be much more important. Last year the Government issued a White Paper entitled Industrial Training—Government Proposals. In it the terms "industrial training" and "apprenticeship" were used as though they were synonymous. I should like to know whether it is now recognised that the training of adult workers may be even more important than the training of young apprentices, at least in terms of numbers.
Debates arising from the White Paper have brought out many weaknesses of our training system. We now have an Act which deals with the problem, and although it is permissive rather than mandatory in its terms it provides scope for improvements. Nevertheless, the emphasis is still on the training of young workers. More research is required. The Parliamentary Secretary may tell us that some planning committee or other body of the Ministry is now urgently studying the question of the training of adult workers.
Nevertheless, my feeling that little has been done in this direction has been confirmed by the National Joint Advisory Council, which has said that
"there are comparatively few opportunities in industry for retraining skilled workers who have to change their employer as well as their occupations."
That passage was quoted in the Ministry of Labour Gazette as recently as February, 1962, and I should like to know whether there have been any further developments.
On 6th March, in answer to my Written Question concerning training and resettlement schemes, the Minister of Labour replied:
"Older redundant workers who are suitable for training are eligible for admission along with other suitable applicants to any of the 3,128 training places at Government training centres…"
Is not that a pitiful figure, to cover all the types of employment involved? What more is being done? Later in his Written Answer the Minister said that
"the training places in Government training centres are being increased to about 5,700."
In reply to another Written Question by me, the Minister said:
1002
"There are 552 places for first year apprentice training in Government training centres which should be increased to 852 by the end of the year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March. 1964; Vol. 690, c. 270–1.]
All who study this subject say that that is unsatisfactory, and that much more needs to be done.
If we include all the places that we can find both in Government centres and private industry we find that no more than 15,000 workers each year, taking part in six-monthly courses, can be catered for, at the very outside. This is farcical when compared with activities in other counties, especially Sweden and the United States. In 1961–62, no fewer than 20,000 persons out of a labour force only one-seventh the size of ours took part in Swedish adult training schemes. In the United States, the Manpower Development Training Act of 1962 will provide for about 750,000 workers over a three-year period.
To match that effort we would have to train well over 100,000 adults per year. Sweden and America probably have other problems, but the situation indicates that some explanation is necessary. If Sweden and America can make provision on that scale it seems to show that a certain amount of apathy exists towards the problem of training our adults.
What investigation has taken place, or is contemplated, on the question of the extent to which training can be stepped up if required—as we expect will be the case—in situations where advantage can be taken by using existing factory premises? The editorial column in this morning's Daily Mail is headed, "Good For the Young" and it contains some pleasing comments on the new Industrial Training Act. The end of the article says:
"The Act is only a beginning. By 1970, we shall need at least another 1,500,000 highly skilled men to serve growing automation—and even these training schemes can hardly produce them. The time has come when every modern device—television, radio, teaching-machines—must be brought into use to raise the technical and educational standards of the nation."
Does the Ministry of Labour agree with the Daily Mail? If so, what does it propose to do about the question?
I now turn to the problem of instructors. If we are to have this great development in training schemes, instructors will be one of our most essential

1003
requirements. Am I not right in thinking that instructors are in short supply today? If so, as well as providing more places, do the Government intend to do anything to obtain the necessary instructors for those additional places? This might be an obstacle to development in training schemes.
The Minister of Labour gave a very interesting reply in the Second Reading debate on the Bill on severance pay, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Aston. The reply was interesting in that although the Bill dealt only with severance pay the Minister departed from the subject and made some interesting comments on other industrial problems. Unfortunately, the Economist was not very impressed with his reply. It seemed to suggest that the Minister had made a good-natured speech, and implied that the coming General Election might have awakened a desire on his part to explain to the House what was being done for the workers. However, he did say that he could not see need at present for severance pay.
We have been rather misled on this point, because last year I cut out a piece from a national newspaper which said:
"Redundancy pay law this year.
The Government may bring in legislation before Christmas laying down a minimum of one week's pay for every year of service for workers who become redundant.
Mr. John Hare, Minister of Labour, hinted to his National Joint Advisory Council yesterday that he would soon be presenting them with proposals for a redundancy law."
It is not a great help, on the eve of a General Election, suddenly to show that the problems which should have been tackled long ago are now at last to get some form of lip-service. That is what the Minister did, and yet what the Minister of Labour said in the House was a complete change from what he had been saying four months before.
Nevertheless, we welcome this belated change of heart. I wish I had time to quote from HANSARD some of the many things which have been said about this matter, and what the Minister said, for it was certainly a most interesting speech and there seems to have been a flash of genius in it. What we now want is action so that the words may come to fruition in the near future. Since we do not know whether the election
1004
will be in June or October there would seem to be time for the Government to say, not what will happen under a new Government, but at this moment.
I should like to ask, too, about the manpower research unit. Many feel that this is a matter of too little and too late and that the research unit, with the number of people in it, can only tickle the problem, which is much more deep-rooted than the Parliamentary Secretary or the right hon. Gentleman believe. Redundancy has struck a very nasty note in the minds of men in this country. I think that it arises from the dramatic redundancy clash with the extraordinary sacking of 5,000 workers by the British Motor Corporation in 1956. It really was a disgraceful operation at that time. When one sees the agreement drawn up for the automobile workers in America—a remarkable document—what happened in that case really was disgraceful, and it struck fear in the hearts of many workers.
In asking for research I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to bear in mind the research by the unit from Cambridge which looked into what happened with the 750 adult workers from Stevenage after the sudden cancellation of the Blue Water missile. It was found there that the weekly workers who got about three to three and a half weeks' severance pay reacted very differently from those monthly salaried workers who got from three months' to three and a half months' redundancy pay. It seemed that the weekly people had very limited severance pay and had to take the first jobs they could possibly get, whereas those with three to three and a halt months' pay were able to look around and were much more able to get the sort of jobs to which their skills fitted them.
Again, there is a lesson to be learned, because of those who quickly had to take a job for economic reasons it was found that more than 20 per cent. after 11 weeks were so dissatisfied with their new jobs that they were looking for other jobs. That is not the best way to get the workers of this country thoroughly satisfied. It was found that some had to pay money to go to look for jobs, and many lost fringe payments and pensions. If there is some research I suggest that the Ministry of Labour have a look at what happened to those

1005
workers, to find out the implications of redundancy, so that when agreements are drawn up it will be possible for them to be drawn up in such a way that they will give to the worker and his family a fair opportunity of living reasonably well and to get a job in which his skill can be used.
Mr. Charles Curran: I entirely agree with all the hon. Member is saying about discrepancy in the English Electric plant and the difference between the severance pay offered to some of the staff as compared with the severance pay offered to the weekly workers. I think that this was disgraceful and completely indefensible, but would the hon. Member not agree that the existence of this discrepancy which biased the odds so heavily against the weekly workers is something which the trade unions ought to have tackled? Does he not agree that this is a responsibility which rests heavily on the trade unions, for permitting this discrepancy to continue?
Mr. Dodds: That may be so, but I think that the hon. Member is mistaking one point. These were not men at work on the floor of the factory. They were all white-collar workers. They were all the same. Therefore, there was a difference between white collar worker and white collar worker, technicians, draughtsmen, and others. The hon. Member is asking a question about something different from the case I was giving.
Mr. Curran: I think that the hon. Member has not quite followed me. He has referred to the report of Mrs. Wedderburn of what happened at Stevenage and Luton, and one of the facts she spotlights is the contrast between the treatment of the men paid by the month and the men paid by the week. That is the contrast to which I was drawing attention and to which the hon. Gentleman was drawing attention. Does he not agree that the contrast which she illustrates between the better position of the monthly paid workers, as compared with the worse position of the weekly paid workers, is a contrast which is really a matter for the unions to tackle first and foremost?
Mr. Dodds: That is an amazing request. One would think the employer
1006
had nothing to do with it. I would like to bet that the trade unions have done their best to get the employers to do just that. If the hon. Gentleman says it is not so, I am surprised. Perhaps he would employ some of his enthusiasm to get the employers to see what they can do to end this anomaly, which is disgraceful. If he will do that I will do my best—if I have any best—to see the trade inions do what they can to get what we all want.
That is why I say the Ministry has got a job to do here. These things should not be kept quiet in the Ministry of Labour. We have arrived at a time when not just the employers and not just the trade unions but other people as well—a lot of people—have an interest in seeing that there are proper agreements to cover redundancy.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The hon. Member is on an important point. Would he not agree that this is a difficult problem, because, clearly, the monthly paid worker, in any event, would justify a redundancy payment by virtue of the fact that he has a month's notice, whereas the weekly worker ha o a week's notice, and that, therefore, the question is whether there is too grew a difference in what is paid to them, although the white collar worker who is on monthly notice would justify some more.
Mr. Dodds: Nobody would disagree with that at all I am saying is that the Government, in the last resort, must ensure that any man who loses his job is given fair terms of contract, subsidised if necessary by the State, so that in a period of transition he does not suffer a heavy drop in his living standard.
This is done in other countries. I wish I had time to give details of agreements which there are in other countries, which show what can be done. Why cannot we do it? Of all the industrial countries we are, in this respect, one of the worst, whether it is because of the trade unions or the employers or not. I am asking that the Government take this up.
The nationalised industries set the best example that I can find. All the nationalised industries have some form of redundancy payment. According to the latest figures we have from the Ministry

1007
of Labour, in private enterprise only about one out of five have them. No one is saying that the agreements of the nationalised industries are perfect.
We are saying that they are the basis of the framework on which it is hoped that private industry will follow. There is a need even for progress there. When speaking earlier, on severance pay, I made the point that the main essential when men lose their work is not so much severance pay, but that it should be seen that they get other jobs. The strength of the agreement with the trade unions is that redundancy should be brought down to the absolute minimum and every effort should be made when men are displaced to find them other work in the nationalised industries, and that the social and economic problems that must flow from it are covered in this way.
How I wish that that could be said about private industry. I should, however, like to pay a tribute to one firm in private industry—I.C.I. I think that it has a marvellous agreement. I am asking that the Ministry of Labour should do what has been done for so long in America—obtain from the best firms in private industry specimen agreements so that they may be available for other firms.
Why I mention particularly the I.C.I. agreement is because it is called "Protection of Employment", and symbolises what we all should be trying to do. It says:
"This booklet could perhaps have been given the title 'Redundancy' instead of 'Protection of Employment' since it deals with arrangements to meet cases of redundancy, but to have done so would be to put the emphasis in the wrong place. The Company's first aim is the protection of employment and it is only when that is not possible that the question of redundancy arises."
I would give 100 per cent. marks to the objective of this redundancy scheme, which is an excellent one in every way. The emphasis is on other employment.
The Ministry of Labour gives us a lot of information in its Gazette, but it does not give it in a way that is helpful. It says:
"A few policies also contain certain provisions which apply only to self employees."
I ask the Ministry to consider getting out some specimen agreements from
1008
some of the best firms so that at least they would be available to spotlight attention on firms that have not even taken this up. I think that the Minister knows that 236 policies were examined, and that it is simply farcical to call many of them redundancy agreements. Therefore, we have to do more about the agreements that are being made.
I am sorry to have taken so long, but this is a very big subject and my biggest problem, in the last few days, has been to eliminate much that I would like to say. But I have learned that this is a fascinating study and the more it is brought up in the House, and talked about, so that all of us can learn from the experience of others, the sooner we shall get that form of education which is necessary but a far better state of affairs.
Finally, I quote from Aristotle. He said:
"When looms weave by themselves man's slavery will end."
Automation does indeed promise to end poverty, but not without cost. If we are reasonably prepared we can get the maximum benefits for the minimum cost. The national economy must grow faster now to maintain plenty of new jobs, particularly for workers displaced by automation. More important is that the obvious and highly-publicised advantages of automation from management should not be allowed to oversight the plight of the little man searching for a place in a growing economy.
4.25 p.m.
Mr. Colin Turner: I think that the House will be indebted to the hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Dodds) for raising this subject today. As he said, this is one on which, as yet, very little research has taken place. In my constituency we are faced with the gradual closure of the Royal ordnance factory. This brings me face to face with a situation that I did not appreciate and did not realise would arise within my own knowledge and area. Therefore, if, in some of the things that I say today I refer to Woolwich, it is because these problems are uppermost in my mind and in the minds of many of my constituents. Many of the factories which the hon. Gentleman has quoted are in the neighbourhood of my

1009
constituency and, therefore, many of my constituents have similar problems.
One of the most significant things which the hon. Gentleman mentioned was the wording of the I.C.I. booklet, "Protection of Employment", because redundancy today, in an era of almost full employment, is more a social than an industrial problem. I want to deal with some of the social problems that arise on this question because I believe that if we solve these social problems, or help to solve them, we can very greatly reduce the importance in the national economy of redundancy.
Rather like the problems that arise in exports, the problems that arise in redundancy are very varied. It is, therefore, one of the most difficult things to try to deal with by legislation, because the problems of no two firms are exactly alike. 'The reasons for redundancy are never Some may be involved in mergers where for production purposes and economy it is necessary to merge two factories in two highly different places. It may be that the Government have given a particular manufacturer encouragement, when he wishes to expand, to move to one of the under-developed areas of the country—the so-called growth areas—away from the South-East.
In the closure of the Royal Ordnance factory, we have one of these set of circumstances. We have had it announced by the Secretary of State for War that there are, in fact, vacancies in one form or another in Government employment for every one of the employees of the factory. It is not that many of the employees in this factory, and the same would apply to many others, are not prepared to move, even though this is a great social upheaval. While a man is ready to go to Leeds or Nottingham and play his part in an expanded R.O.F. in those cities, it is his wife and family which hold him back. One of the factors is that he has children at school.
What is even more important, however, is the question of housing. As long as a large number of people live in what amounts to tied housing, by which I mean council houses, it is extremely difficult for them to find suitable accommodation at the other end. I should like, therefore, to make a suggestion in this connection.
1010
Quite apart from the closure of the Royal Ordnance factory, I have recently found two constituents who were made redundant in South-East London and could not find similar work in the area. They succeeded, however, in finding employment elsewhere, in one case at Stevenage and in the other further north. These people were exceptions, because they were determined to achieve something. Both of them lived in council houses. They succeeded in finding in their new areas of employment a council house tenant who wanted to move to the South East. They succeeded in mobilising both borough councils into arranging an exchange. This is usually extremely difficult.
My suggestion to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is that he might take up with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government the suggestion whether it would not be possible to set up either a central register, or some other form of register, of council housing and of people who wish to make exchanges in that way. It is an extremely difficult matter for an individual to undertake, particularly with a borough council a long distance away. If it were possible to do this, we would be striking a blow against redundancy and its social effects.
If a man could find a suitable job elsewhere and could also find somebody who wished to move down to his own part of the country, this would be much better than retraining somebody in a new profession or trade. It is surely right to bring the people who are able to carry on a certain trade to that work if it is available, no matter where it is, and to do an exchange with somebody working in a different trade.
I turn next to the question of the older people who are made redundant. Here the State has to play a growing part in one form or another in assisting these people. It is difficult for people between 50 and retirement age, no matter whether they are in Government service or in private industry, to find another job at that time of life. I feel that some form of extra assistance must be made available by the Government in addition to any terminal grant which these people may get. I have a large number of elderly people in employment at the Royal Ordnance factory and I

1011
must give the Government Departments concerned great credit for the way they have leaned over backwards to find employment for this older age group from the Royal Ordnance factory. The efforts of the Departments have been very much appreciated and they have been extraordinarily successful.
I should like next to turn to the question whether a redundancy payment is the most effective way to help people. This comes back to my earlier question of housing. When people are moving, and if we are to get mobility of labour, we must overcome the housing problem. As long as there is a housing shortage in the main industrial' centres and the great areas like London and Birmingham, people will always be tied. Surely, it would be better for Government and industry, if necessary in partnership, as in some cases may have to be done, rather than give merely a cash sum, to direct whatever form of monetary assistance they give towards enabling people, where necessary, to purchase a house.
I have a number of constituents in that category. They have live all their lives in the Borough of Woolwich in council housing. They are ready and willing to go to, say, Leeds or Nottingham, but it is quite outside their means to put down the deposit and purchase a house, although their weekly income would enable them to meet repayments if they could overcome this obstacle.
Mr. John Robertson: Will the hon. Member tell us what would be the weekly cost to such a worker of buying a new house, apart from the deposit? What would be the cost in repayments and rates?
Mr. Turner: It is possible for some of these people, who are getting as much as £25 a week, to purchase a house out of this sum, on the building society basis that 25 per cent. of their basic wage is available for housing. On this basis, they could do it for £8 a week very easily, inclusive of rates and mortgage repayment. These people are able to do it. They merely do not have the ready cash available for the deposit.
I had an interesting reply from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War on this matter, saying that the
1012
only assistance that his Department could at present give to these people is in the payment of legal charges and similar items, and that, of course, is a help. These people, however, are established employees of the War Office and in many cases they are in more fortunate circumstances than people who are involved in redundancy in private enterprise.
I agree that we have made far too slow progress in the setting up of redundancy agreements. I hope that in the very near future my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour will be able to announce Government proposals in this direction. I had hoped that at the time of the Redundant Workers (Severance Pay) Bill he would have been in a position to make an announcement. I hope that he will make one before many weeks have passed. I shall await with interest to see whether my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is able to say anything about this when he replies to the debate.
I echo the hope expressed by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford that the Government will set up some form of detailed research into the social and economic circumstances of people who are made redundant. I am certain that there is wide scope and that many lessons can be learned for the future which will assist Government and private enterprise employees alike if much-feared redundancy comes about.
It should, however, be the principal aim of Government and private industry alike to follow the example of I.C.I. and prepare schemes to ensure that their workers are found other employment elsewhere when major redundancy schemes occur. Rather than have the emphasis upon cash payments, the basic thought should be to look to the future and to secure employment.
4.40 p.m.
Mr. William Whitlock: I am sure that the whole House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) for this opportunity to debate a very great and important problem. We are talking about redundancy, a euphemism for unemployment, in a period of technological change. To be unemployed can be a very demoralising experience, whether it comes about because of

1013
technological change, or any other reason, whether it is an individual personal problem, or part of a pattern of local or national unemployment.
Few of us here can possibly understand the fund of human misery which exists behind the statistics of unemployment. Obviously, we must strive our utmost to alleviate and eradicate that misery, not only because we feel that none of our fellow human beings should suffer it, but also because it represents a criminally stupid waste of the abilities and talents of our people, a waste which obviously affects the whole nation.
Ten years ago, hardly anyone had heard of the term "automation", or knew what it meant, but today many people, some of them to their cost, know what is meant when we harness mechanical muscles to electronic brains to make machines which, in turn, make other machines, which mend machines and mind machines and which can digest and store information which enables those machines to build up a kind of electronic memory capable of enabling the machines to react at lightning speed in almost any circumstances.
In this situation, the introduction of automation is not, as some would suggest, just a speeding up of the industrial processes which have been going on since industrial life began. It is something which goes much further than that, something which creates fears even greater than those which increased mechanisation in industry produced in the past. It is those greater fears which we have to overcome if as a nation we are to benefit from all the things which are coming along in industry.
We live in an age of rapidly increasing scientific and technical progress. New devices and new techniques are coming along everyday and we as nation, living as no other nation does on its export trade, must use these new devices and these new techniques faster than any other country. But, as we have all seen, they can bring in their train vast social, human and economic implications. New industries can mushroom overnight and old industries suddenly be seen to be obsolete or obsolescent, with all the heartache and upheaval which come with such a situation.
Science has provided us with the means of production for the future, with the
1014
means of transforming the world if we are sensible enough to make use of these new opportunities; but science has not automatically given us a system of society which enables us to ensure that all the benefits of these new devices and new techniques are shared by all.
In the first Industrial Revolution, rickets, a disease of malnutrition, was so prevalent a along the children of the working class in this country that it became known on the Continent as the English disease. We are now only at the beginning of the second industrial revolution, at the beginning of the uses of automation, electronics, nuclear energy, manmade materials, and so on, and while I do not for a moment suggest that in the second industrial revolution we shall see a return of rickets among our children, it seems ob 'ions that, unless we make the right preparations for the situation which is coming along, we shall have social inequalities and social injustices visited upon the backs of the people who will be the new modern victims of progress.
Just as we shall suffer if we do not use these new techniques as quickly as others, we can also suffer if they are introduced in an entirely unplanned manner. Increasingly, even a Government of hon. Members opposite cannot leave the introduction of automation, for instance, to the whim and fancy of those motivated by a desire purely for private profit, nor even in an entirely unfettered way to industrialists who may have the public good closely at heart, but who cannot, in the nature of things, possibly know the national consequences of what they propose to do.
No economic planning today makes sense unless it is on the basis of technical knowledge of what is going on and of what ought to be going on in every industry. That is why my hon. Friend has spoken about the need for increased co-operation among Government, employers me trade unions to cope with the situation arising from the increased use of these new devices. Hon. Members may know the story of the American industrialist who very proudly showed a trade union official around his newly automated motor car factory. Turning to the trade union official he said, "You cannot sell trade union cards to those machines"; whereat the trade union official replied, "No, and

1015
you cannot sell your motor cars to the machines, either".
Obviously, if a factory is automated and production is greatly increased with but a fraction of previous labour costs, and if that process merely increases the dole queue and that kind of thing goes on all over the country, disaster lies ahead for us all. Almost limitless possibilities are before us if we are wise, but all must benefit from the new methods and those who are made redundant must be part of the all. Only if that is so will there be a disappearance of the resistance to change.
The fear of unemployment among men faced with this change is very real, and if in any industry men becoming redundant are faced with a catastrophic fall in their incomes, they will obviously resist the change which means that their skills are no longer needed. Who can blame them when we remember that the present unemployment benefit is so low that the man who becomes unemployed suffers a far sharper fall in his income than did the man who became unemployed in the 1930s?
If the nation is to benefit from the disappearance of the skills of these people, the man who suffers that unemployment is entitled to say that he should not be compelled to make a sacrifice and to suffer the miseries of unemployment. If he is to be retrained in a new job, why must he put up with a paltry pittance while he is in training? What justice would there be for a man compelled to go to a new job after retraining if he is paid a much lower wage?
All these things must be examined and, as was said by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Turner), we must look at the problem created by the situation of the older man whose skill has been made redundant by the introduction of machinery and who may not be able readily to acquire new skills. Do we leave these men on a kind of human scrapheap and in receipt of a very low rate of unemployment benefit, after they have given a lifetime of service and when their difficulties arise through no fault of their own? Such men must not be treated as though they were an unfortunate and embarrassing casualty, for ever to be assigned to a
1016
reduced standard in a life without hope or purpose.
We must, as my hon. Friend has said in his Motion, make adequate financial provision for all these circumstances as a matter of social justice as well as of enlightened self-interest. We must reinvest new hoards of capital to re-employ men who have, perhaps several times in a lifetime, been put out of work because of the introduction of new methods. We must provide for industrial training on a scale never before contemplated. The provisions of the Industrial Training Act show that the Government admit to some responsibility for industrial training. I believe that we shall see the need for the creation of many more Government training centres than have ever before been considered necessary, because more and more the State will have to provide facilities for training such as industry cannot, or will not, undertake.
This Motion has been inspired by a look forward into the kind of world which we shall experience in the future. Technological change will produce upheavals in our lives which are not contemplated in the terms of the Motion. The increased use of automation inevitably will result in shorter working hours. This, in turn, will bring us greater problems about the proper use of leisure and these problems will have an impact upon our education system, which will be faced with the task of equipping us to use our increased leisure wisely. The need to prepare our children with new skills will have its own repercussions on the education system. The future will involve more and more State intervention in a society which will feel the impact of the things about which we have been talking and which will become increasingly complex.
So, once again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford for enabling us to have this discussion today.
4.54 p.m.
Mr. John Page: I congratulate the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) on providing us with an opportunity once again, within a month, to discuss the important subject of redundancy. I feel particularly grateful to him and to you, Mr. Speaker, because on this occasion I

1017
have been given the opportunity to speak. We may consider the Motion against the background of the debate on severance pay for redundant workers which took place on 14th February and against the background of the Contracts of Employment Act. Both are important in their effect on the security and happiness of a man at his work.
It is a cliché to say that the country is facing a second industrial revolution. I believe that many of those engaged in industry are not facing it at all. Some are trying to forget it, others to ignore it, and some are actually trying to run away from it. During this debate hon. Members will have an opportunity to present industry with a picture of the advantages which will come if we accept change and of the dangers which will confront the country if we ignore it.
Many hon. Members will have read an article which appeared recently in the Sunday Times by Mr. William Allen, in which he suggested that Britain is a half-time country getting half-pay for half-work under half-hearted management. As one working in productive industry—I suppose, because of my duties in this House, on a half-time basis—I believe that there is a lot of truth in the statements contained in that article.
Much thinking has been done about the problems of change. I wish particularly to draw the attention of the House to a booklet called Industrial Change—the Human Aspect published by the Committee set up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his capacity as chairman of the Conservative Party's Advisory Committee on Policy. With my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. K. Lewis), I had the honour of sitting as a member of that Committee.
On the Committee which produced the document there were representatives of management—including Sir Max Bemrose, this year's chairman of the Conservative Party National Union—of trade unions, the law, and this House. The conclusions contained in the pamphlet are that change of technique and product are desirable and essential if "the country is to remain a leading industrial producer. If we have tech-
1018
nological change, therefore it must be welcomed and not opposed. We must, therefore, remove the fear of the consequences of technological change and thus we are led to the various types of provisions for redundancy and severance at the time of change.
I wish to mention one other aspect, the retraining of people who have to change their jobs, and to ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to consider whether there is need to use Government training centres for the training of people who could go back to their companies and help train apprentices, and others who needed retraining.
Redundancy presents two problems: the medium and long-term problem of possible unemployment and the immediate blow to an individual at the time when he declared redundant. From the debate on 14th February we know that the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance are considering the implications of a graduated scheme for unemployment benefit. I realise the great dangers which would follow if the House and the Government committed the taxpayers of the future to unpredictable commitments. I believe that the industrial side of the National Insurance scheme should be divorced from the remainder, and, possibly, put under the control of the Ministry of Labour, and that substantial increases in unemployment benefit and sick pay could be met at not too great a cost if they did not automatically lead to changes in the other rates covered by the National Insurance Scheme.
I believe that 1d. a week from the employer and the employee alike would produce £10 million per year. Assuming, for the sake of argument, a rate of 3 per cent. unemployment nationally, the benefit rate for a single man of £9 per week would cost an additional £221 million a year. This could be produced from an extra 1s. a week from the employer and the employee.
That is not an enormous figure to produce a very great change in unemployment benefit. On a 5 per cent. unemployment figure nationally and again £9 a week the additional cost would be £368 million a year, which would be found by about one 1s. 8d. per week additionally from each. I shall not

1019
argue the merits and demerits of such a scheme because there are many complications. After a little personal research I emphasise that if the industrial side of insurance were divorced from the rest, changes could be made which would not be too great for the country as a whole. That might be part of the Government's effort in improving unemployment benefit.
I turn now to the redundancy arrangements which might be made between employer and employee. The object of these payments should be to cushion the discomfort of the employee at the moment when he loses his job through no fault of his own. In general, I support the line taken by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. J. Silverman), and also the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond), in the Bills that they have produced from time to time suggesting that about one week's pay per year of employment might be paid to an individual on becoming redundant.
However, I draw attention to a particular anomaly in the debate on 14th February. It arises from statements by hon. Members opposite. I have them with me, but I will not read them in full. The hon. Member for Aston, speaking about workers declared redundant, said:
"We do not think that these people should have to wait another year for such legislation…it ought to be introduced during the present Session."
The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse), said:
"I regard the Bill as providing the minimum of what should be done. I hope that when the next Labour Administration comes into power men with a sense of urgency and dynamism will deal with this subject".
Even the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) said:
"We believe that such a man is entitled to severance pay and that this should be something over and above any improvement in the unemployment benefits."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1964; Vol. 689, c. 698, 732–3, 760.]
That is all very well, but some of us on this side of the House felt almost nauseated by the "holier than thou" attitude of hon. Members opposite. If one looks at the Labour Party's recent policy statement, "New Frontiers for Social Security" of October, 1963, in
1020
which are set out detailed proposals of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party, one finds there is not a single word in the conclusions advocating severance pay for redundant workers.
We have had all these imprecations upon the Government, yet in the Labour Party's plan there is no mention of severance pay, except the rather half-hearted passage which states:
"We are in no way opposed to the provision by progressive employers…of their own superannuation, redundancy and sickness schemes."
That does not seem to be a very dramatic and forward-looking policy by the Labour Party on the question of severance and redundancy. I hope that the support of hon. Members opposite of the Redundant Workers (Severance Pay) Bill will not make the country feel that the Labour Party, in the unlikely event of being returned to office, is committed to a Bill covering severance payment for redundant workers.
I urge the Government to do something more themselves. With my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn), on 14th February, and with my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Turner) in the debate today, I am disappointed that we have not already received a detailed Government statement on their plans for redundancy. Although I realise that it is important that this should be considered in the context of a Government scheme covering unemployment benefit, I do not see why work on a Conservative severance pay Bill should not be continuing now and, if necessary, produced before the other Bill is passed.
There is an obligation on a company to reward its employees who have invested their efforts in the company over a number of years. A good employer—a number of good employers do this—feels it to be his duty. I should like all companies to be compelled to discharge these obligations which at present are accepted by only a few. A redundancy scheme such as that outlined in the Bill of the hon. Member for Aston has great advantages for the employee, but I also believe it has great advantages both for management and trade unions when looked at in the context of the Contracts of Employment Act.

1021
If such severance payments and benefits were written into a contract they would be forfeited if the employee were to break his contract, particularly in the context of "wild-cat" strikes. This would increase the strength of the individual employee to resist any proposal which would make him take action in contradiction of his contract. That is something which I think we would all welcome. It would strengthen the power of the contract and give much greater authority to it.
I wish now to quote an interesting dialogue which took place on 5th March between the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter), who, I am very glad to see, is present, and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). The hon. Member for Southwark was speaking in Committee on the Contracts of Employment Bill. I will read what he said, because I think it vitally important. He said:
"It has always amused me when it has been said that somehow we must deal with unofficial strikes. If there is a pit in which the boys are having a row, and they walk out half-way through a shift, so that they are on unofficial strike, they will not sit back and think, ' Well, now, what about the continuity of employment? 'If they are prepared to lose the shift's pay because they are in a paddy and are having a row with the management, of course they will not worry about continuity of employment.
"In the same way the management will get the union boys together and say, let us get back to work; no victimisation'."
Then my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet intervened:
"Suppose that instead of losing just a week's pay they lost a half-year bonus? A situation would certainly arise in which Jack would not get George out on strike, because he would not be prepared to lose that amount. He would not do it, would he?"
Then the hon. Member for Southwark said:
"If this Bill offered a big enough carrot, that would be a different matter. I am always prepared to look at the carrot, but there is not much of it in this Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 5th March, 1963; c. 22.]
Mr. Ray Gunter: Hear, hear.
Mr. Page: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and those were exactly my sentiments.
I thought that there was not nearly enough of the carrot in the Bill. How-
1022
ever, if we could produce a really substantial carrot in the form of a severance payment on behalf of an employee I think that that would be a carrot of sufficient size even to help the hon. Gentleman to see better in the dark.
Mr. J. J. Mendelson: Is the hon. Gentleman proposing to write into severance and redundancy legislation a penal clause which would exclude a workman from benefiting, if and when he becomes unemployed through a technological change, if he had taken part in a strike the year before? If that is what the hon. Gentleman is saying he ought to come clear about it.
Mr. Page: I think that the hon. Gentleman is going quite a big stage further. think that the severance payment aspect would automatically be written into the contract of employment. Therefore, if a man broke his contract he would automatically I ask the benefits of that contract whatever happened to him at some future stage.
Mr. Mendelson: Then the hon. Gentleman is confirming what I said he was saying?
Mr. Page: I think that I am with the hon. Gentleman as far as that, but it does not have any effect on whether a man becomes redundant or not a year later, except that if he broke his contract, one year later he would be on the basis of a man employed for one year and not for a longer period.
The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) raised the point which I as a matter of fact, was going to raise next, because when we have this new, important and valuable legislation I think it will be absolutely necessary for us to institute some kind of labour courts which would deal with appeals against unjust dismissals and other allegations of breach of contract between employer and employee. This was another recommendation in our pamphlet on industrial change.
I would conclude by pointing out some of the difficulties with which we are faced in connection with preparing a Bill dealing with severance payments. I am only saying this so that when my right hon. Friend the Minister is working on the Bill, as I hope he will, these will be some of the ideas which he will have in mind. First, there is the difficulty of the

1023
definition of "redundant". Then there is the position of the company which has to lay off a number of its work people temporarily because of, say, a strike in another industry.
Let us suppose that there was a strike in the motor industry and that a firm was making components exclusively for that industry. One wonders whether or not, in the event of the closing down for a short period of the components factory, the redundancy scheme would come into operation. Next, one wonders whether firms such as Vauxhall Motors, Aspro and others which already have substantial redundancy schemes would be allowed to contract out because, if they were, it would leave in any scheme which might be organised by a consortium of insurance companies only those firms and industries which might be in a rather weak position.
Lastly, there is the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford concerning how the scheme would be funded and what would happen in the event of the bankruptcy of any of the firms in the scheme. Again, I think that it should be acceptable for the Government to underwrite any scheme, on similar lines to the third-party insurance scheme for motor cars, during the first few years and that the Government should certainly take over the responsibilities as far as redundancy payments are concerned on behalf of firms which go bankrupt so that those employed by such firms would not lose their redundancy benefits.
Those are some of the difficulties, but I am quite certain, like the hon. Gentleman, that all these difficulties can be overcome. We are all looking forward to the production of the Government scheme. I hope that it will be presented very early in the next Session and that details of it will be given in our party's election manifesto so that those in industry will have no fear of the technological change which is absolutely necessary if the country is to prosper.
5.16 p.m.
Mr. J. J. Mendelson: The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) said several times in the course of his speech that he did not want anyone to be afraid of the technological change which was occurring
1024
and that it was part of the Government's duty to introduce such legislation so that no one would fear what might happen to him in the case of his job being declared redundant. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has not rendered the Government a very great service by the proposal which he made and on which I took him up a few minutes ago. If he is suggesting to the Government that they would dispel fear by linking redundancy legislation with penal clauses against people who had been engaged in unofficial industrial activity in their past employment, then he would make quite certain that there would be a devil of a row and that such legislation would be received with the deepest resentment and suspicion by the workers.
Mr. John Page: Would not the hon. Gentleman accept the view that if there is a contract it should be kept and that if it is broken unilaterally there should be penalty clauses?
Mr. Mendelson: We are dealing here with new proposals for redundancy legislation. I am well aware that among the Tory modernisers of trade union law and legislation there are quite a few who wish to go back on the historic legislasion of the Trade Union Acts of 1913 and 1906 and who wish to reverse the process and put trade unionists once again in a strait jacket. I understand that trend of opinion very well. What I am saying is that if the hon. Gentleman wants to proceed on those lines he can do so, but that in that case he will meet the united opposition of the trade union movement in the country. I am quite certain that the more senior members of the hon. Gentleman's party who are responsible for policy, including those engaged in modernising processes, will move away from the hon. Gentleman as far as possible.
Turning to the main considerations which my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) has put before the House, I should like to say that I am particularly grateful to him because he has made his Motion fairly wide. My hon. Friend pointed to technological change at the very beginning of the text which he put down.
It is not enough to consider the details which may be introduced by employers

1025
or by legislation and which may be made effective by employers or by the Government after redundancy has already occurred. I detected in some speeches by hon. Members opposite far too easy an acceptance of the fact of redundancy in the first place, and a misunderstanding of how work people must look at this problem. There must be no facile acceptance that they will be declared redundant but an anxiety that long-term economic planning will take place in good time so as to reduce very severely the amount of redundancy at each stage of technological change, with an assurance that new industries will be introduced into those areas in time where it can be foreseen that technological change will force a certain amount of redundancy. We must ensure that if an arrangement is made for training and retraining, there will be new jobs for the men after they have been retrained. This comment applies not only to the present Government but to a Government formed by my right hon. Friends.
Any Government must understand that in the trade union movement the policy of setting up training centres for retraining is fully supported. But when a predecessor of the present Minister of Labour suggested that some district officers in the trade union movement had shown apprehension as to what might happen in their area and therefore had not been sufficiently active in supporting the idea of retraining, he did not understand the feeling among work-people that we should couple the setting-up of training centres with the introduction of new industries in which new skills can be used and that unless we do this we are not doing even half the job; we are doing no part of the job at all.
This is particularly important in a period, when, quite rightly, with the support of all sides of the House and the trade union movement, we are bringing special aid to certain hard-hit areas, when we are deciding—not necessarily supported by all of us in the manner in which it is being done—to bring new or additional industries into areas of high unemployment and of a considerable amount of short-time working. Because in the past neglect has hit these areas, and because of the absence of
1026
long-term planning, we are bound to create a certain distortion in our economic development, because we are bound to affect some of the natural economic development which would have taken place by the many initial advantages which are given to employers and firms if they move into the special areas.
In my area of South Yorkshire we are fully in support of special aid being given to the development districts, but we believe that there are two important ways in which our area can be protected from becoming a special area in future. We must deal with the problem by looking at the day after tomorrow. South Yorkshire is not the only area affected in this way; there are many others in the same position. There are two solutions to the problem which will develop. Ours is an area which at the moment has not very high unemployment. We have gone through a difficult period during which there has been considerable short-time working. In one or two of our major industries, such as steel and engineering, people have been working four shifts instead of six or three shifts instead of six over 18 months or so. We have only just emerged into the new pre-election boom. For over 18 months or two years much short-time working has taken place in my area and other areas—and short-time working is nothing but unemployment and redundancy under another name.
In these areas we have a number of old-established industries, such as coal mining, steel and certain types of engineering, which go back a long way and which are designed to meet the needs of the present but which are not necessarily very well designed to meet the needs of the future. There are only two ways in which the economic dangers of the future can be met. First, the works must modernise themselves—and a good deal of modernisation has taken place in the works in my area; but when they modernise themselves, they are bound to need less labour.
The Government must make quite certain that their acceptance of the idea of redundancy legislation, if they accept it, must not be a substitute for long-term economic planning and for recognition of the need of new industries and the diversification of industry in our old

1027
industrial areas. It will not be enough for them to say, "We know that there is a fair amount of redundancy occurring but we are doing something about it once people have become redundant". Once people have become redundant, if the problem grows it will become unmanageable.
We must always keep in mind that all these ideas of training and retraining make sense only if they are kept to certain limits. If we had thousands and thousands of people being declared redundant in some older industrial areas as a result of technological change, we should not be able to cope with the problem. The Government might set up more training centres, but what would the men do after they had acquired new skills? The Government must couple any ideas which are currently being discussed about redundancy legislation with the need for long-term economic planning and, in particular, the planning of additional opportunities of employment in the older industrial areas.
There is a second way in which these areas which are not at the moment special areas must be helped, and that is by a more active export policy. In my area there is an engineering and foundry firm which is very worried because, although the order book does not look too bad for the next five to ten months, when the firm looks beyond that period it finds that a number of opportunities which it might have had will probably be re-directed by a certain amount of new investment into special unemployment areas. The only answer which they see is to concentrate more on export markets. Therefore, a policy which helps the special areas and which introduces redundancy legislation, but which at the same time does nothing to give special help to exporters in the older industrial areas, does not make sense.
I am speaking for an area which is not at the moment an area with heavy redundancy, but it is the duty of all of us who come from such older industrial regions to make the point in time so that the Government have no alibi when, in five or seven years' time, unemployment and redundancy occur in these older industrial areas which at present are not so deeply affected. It would not be
1028
sufficient for them to say, "We have provided for severance-pay legislation".
This explains why there is more than one opinion in the trade union movement about priorities in legislation. I fully support the point of view recently expressed by the General Council of the T.U.C. in its intervention with the Government—that priority in legislation ought to be given to improvements in general unemployment benefits. I share the view held by some in the trade union movement that not only might an attempt be made to include in new legislation all sorts of things which have been mentioned in passing today—I do not regard this as a serious danger—but, far more important—and I do regard this as a serious danger—special redundancy legislation might hold back the necessary advances in general unemployment and social insurance legislation which should take place as soon as possible.
I turn from these more general but decisive back ground problems to some of the reasons given today for redundancy. One hon. Member said that a firm with interests all over the country might decide to close one plant and transfer the work which was carried on there to another works. Such decisions are normally made by interlocking directorates or by the directorate of a holding company. The people who make such decisions remain in the same position—no matter where the work may be carried on, their £15,000 a year as directors of the combine or corporation will not be affected.
The matter is viewed in a very different light by those who live in the district where a plant is to be closed. Recently in South Yorkshire this happened in a very big way: 1,200 were declared redundant. It recently happened in Doncaster, where 2,000 were declared redundant. The experience up there has been dismal indeed.
The Ford Motor Company, which I give as my second example, was given a great deal of help to move to Merseyside. One hon. Member said that this policy itself might cause redundancy, because the Government, rightly, encourage a major corporation to move into an area of high unemployment and set up a new plant. As a consequence of this policy, the Ford Motor Company

1029
decided to close its plant at Doncaster. Some of my colleagues and I tabled questions to the former Minister of Labour, who is now Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, about the redundancy position in Doncaster. He said in answer that no final decision had been taken and it was not yet certain what redundancy might arise in Doncaster. On the very same day that the right lion. Gentleman gave me that answer notices of redundancy for 800 employees in Doncaster were being typed in the offices of the Ford Motor Company.
I am not charging the former Minister of Labour with deliberately misleading the House. He was ignorant of the facts. The remarkable situation arose that a major corporation, in spite of the aid and encouragement it received from the Government to move to Merseyside and set up a new plant there, did not, think it necessary to inform the Minister of Labour of the large-scale redundancy affecting 2,000 people which it was planning in Doncaster. The Minister of Labour was unaware of these facts. There was no liaison between the Ministry and Fords. The Minister said to me feebly at the end of our exchanges, "The hon. Gentleman has now given me the information and I will get on to my officers on the spot to get busy".
The Minister should have been the one who should have told the House what was happening in Doncaster. This is creating the worst possible impression among workpeople and it makes many people feel that there is grave danger in easily accepting a redundancy or severance-pay policy which might become an alibi for the kind of treatment which has been meted out to some employees of Fords at Doncaster.
I want to quote another example from my own constituency. A certain amount of redundancy occurred in a well-established engineering works of considerable tradition. A report appeared in the local Press one Saturday afternoon to the effect that 70 members of the staff were to be declared redundant. The report later indicated to the readers that another 70—this time not members of the staff, but other employees would also be declared redundant in a short time. I happened to be in my constituency on that day. I was attending a
1030
function that evening which was attended also by the chairman and secretary of the shop stewards committee at that firm. They said that the notice in the Press on the Saturday afternoon was the first they had heard of any question of 70 workpeople, in addition to those on the staff, being threatened with redundancy. These were the very men who were responsible to their members in the works for matters concerning the protection of their conditions of work and their jobs.
There emerges from this clear proof of the grave need for employers to change their attitude about consultation. The Government should ensure that employers are encouraged to consult. All major changes brought about by technology at change or rearrangement of work as between one plant and another should be the subject of consultation between employers and work-people well before the decision is finally taken.
Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I am not defending what happened in the instances the hon. Gentleman has quoted, but might not there be this explanation, because I have known this happen before? A very active paper—I imagine that papers like the Sheffield Star or the Sheffield Telegraph are very active; it was probably the Sheffield Star—can get hold of a rumour that there is to be redundancy, perhaps three or four months ahead. The paper then issues a headline—"Seventy may be redundant". It causes much upset to both management and men, even though the management have not taken the final decision.
Mr. Mendelson: That can happen. Nobody would contradict the hon. Gentleman in saying that it sometimes happens. I can tell him, however, that that is not what happened in the case I instanced. I know of other cases—there is no time to go into them now—where it did not happen in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests but where it was based on something much more serious than a rumour.
Because of a number of discussions which later took place between the representatives of the workpeople and the management, and also because of the amount of public feeling which was

1031
created in the area, only a very small number of the additional 70 who it was reported were to come under the axe in the near future did in fact become redundant. In fairness, I must add that in the first 70 mentioned there were a number who were very near retiring age, but by no means the whole 70 were in this category. However, although I ought to mention all these facts, if the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) wants me to go into the details, there is no question about the main fact that the announcement about the potential threat to the additional 70 workpeople—it was an existing threat, not an imaginary or rumoured one—was seen for the first time by the representatives of the workpeople in the public Press.
This is scandalous, but it happens again and again. It happens because the directorates of many major corporations are still as old-fashioned as they were in the 1920s and 1930s in this respect. Most of them do not believe that this is a matter in which consultation with the workpeople is either necessary or called for. Many of them are convinced that it is solely a decision for management, that they will take it, and that they will then have "consultation"—what they call consultation—namely, discussions on the details of redundancy after the major decision has already been taken.
I am not arguing for a hard and fast system whereby the trade unions must take part in every decision of management. That would be absurd. I say that because it is easy to be misunderstood when debating these matters. It has been proved time and again that it is not possible any longer to entrust the future of workpeople to the decisions of interlocking directorates without having regard to what happens to a plant in a given area and the social consequences of the plant being closed down.
We must also consider the position and duty of the Government in this situation. If one believes that the economy generally and Government policy in this sector should be left to the decision of management, one will not get very far in following the course I am suggesting or accepting my criti-
1032
cisms of the present system. However, if one accepts that Britain as a manufacturing country can move into the next stage of economic development only on the basis of a planned economy, then I think that we will get somewhere.
This should be the basis of the working of N.E.D.C. Although I admit that so far it has not been found possible by the Federation of British Industries to make a contribution to certain parts of N.E.D.C.'s policy, no doubt the six industrialists who represent British employers on N.E.D.C. are well ahead in some respects of their colleagues in the country. Recently those six industrialists accepted three proposals as the basis for a discussion of N.E.D.C.'s incomes policy, but that acceptance was later repudiated by the General Council of the Federation of British Industries, so I suppose that, in that respect, the six industrialists on N.E.D.C. do not really represent their colleagues.
Suffice to say that on general long-term economic planning it was assumed that there had been some agreement on the basis of how this problem was to be tackled. N.E.D.C. appeared to agree that it would be solved only by all sections being taken into consultation; and that meant the Government employers and employees. It should follow, therefore, that any major problems arising out of technological change should be a matter for discussion between employers and employees.
It is interesting to note that in a country so addicted to the capitalist system as the United States, a certain amount of that is already taking place. As we know, the trade union movement there employs many people who are called "business agents", along with a considerable number of technologists and economists. In a limited number of American industries the trade union representatives, accompanied by their experts, are called into consultation by employers at a very early stage when technological changes force a rearrangement of the process of work or a rearrangement of the labour force. Although this will not please the hon. Member for Harrow, West, this has come about in a number of American industries, purely and solely in some cases, because the major American trade unions have threatened to take their men

1033
out on strike unless the unions were consulted when such changes were being contemplated.
Hon. Members who have studied American developments in this sphere probably know that proposed changes can lead to a spreading-out of any unpleasant results; for instance, arrangements can sometimes be made whereby a certain amount of redundancy is reduced. In time, some of the redundancy can be absorbed in other ways. There is also the possibility of the work itself being spread but arranged in such a way that redundancy does not result. The American employers have another reason for accepting this sort of policy, for we must remember that America has between 51 million and 6 million unemployed. There would be a dim future for the capitalist system in America unless some of the more enlightened employers agreed with the trade union representatives on some palliative measures like those I have been describing.
Whatever economic system we adopt in Britain it must be accepted that, in the long term, decisions affecting technological change which might involve redundancy or have an adverse or other effect on the whole future of a group of workers must be the subject of consultation. It must become the duty of management to work with trade unions and discuss and consult at the earliest possible stage when decisions, particularly decisions of this magnitude, are being contemplated.
Several schemes for severance pay and redundancy have been suggested. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) intervened on this matter earlier. I appreciate that he thinks deeply about these social problems. When he speaks on these matters, particularly on the subject of social insurance, it is obvious that he has given a great deal of thought to the subject before speaking. Earlier he challenged my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford about the example which my hon. Friend gave. The hon. Member for Uxbridge asked why the trade unions on their own did not settle the matter. I admit that he did not use the words "on their own", but he wondered why the trade unions did not get tough. The simple answer is that in many cases the trade unions have been tough but the final decision has still gone against
1034
them. In such circumstances, the unions find themselves in a difficult position.
As I said earlier, and I deliberately repeat this, the attitude of the work-people wren their jobs are threatened with redundancy is the desire to remain in employment; and, naturally, the trade unions must express that attitude. This does not apply only to workpeople in industry. An example of how it can apply even in this House has occurred with the presentation of the Government's controversial Measure covering r.p.m. A number of hon. Members opposite may find it easy to say that workpeople should accept change, while they themselves are on this occasion finding it difficult to accept what the Government propose to do to r.p.m.
Mr. Curran: These examples are instances of the general problem. Everyone is in favour of change as long as it does not affect him personally. It is rather like chastity or temperance in this country; everyone believes in it as long as it is in general terms.
Mr. Mendelson: I am pleased that the hon. Member intervened, because he helps me to illustrate my point. The lesson which he should draw with me is that we should accept with a great deal of caution the words we use when we urge others to accept major changes which may affect their future employment position. We should accept that it is an essential pre-condition to create an atmosphere in which Luddism is a thing of the past and in which hesitation, doubt and worry about bringing unions and workers into consultation on any scientific or technological change are also things of the past.
Workpeople must be convinced that what is being done is being done in a planned way without imposing sacrifices on only one section of the people and not on another We must also convince them that what we are doing is scientifically necessary o benefit the economy, and that by accepting the consequences of the new scientific and technological changes at will benefit. If we are conscious of these things then, against this background, the details of redundancy arrangements can be discussed across the table—but, unless we adopt this attitude, doubts will persist and technological change will not have the meaning it should have in this country.

1035
The present trend of allowing economic policies to be influenced by short-term political considerations and of having stop-go economic policies partly dictated by electoral considerations are the worst possible preparations for a policy of long-term planning which will give a sense of security to industry, and to workpeople in particular. If we are serious in welcoming technological change we must also attune our long-term policy to the change that is inevitably coming.
5.50 p.m.
Mr. Dudley Smith: I agree with the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) when he says that the great desire of the working population is to remain in employment, particularly when threatened with redundancy. We have had a fairly wide-ranging debate. The parents of my generation were worried about unemployment; it bit very deeply into their souls, and set the tone for the depressed 'thirties. My generation is increasingly worried about problems of redundancy, and the generation that is to follow will be even more concerned about it.
Redundancy is a more sophisticated variation of the theme of unemployment, but it is just as real, though for entirely different reasons. I agree with the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds), who moved his Motion so admirably, that unemployment and redundancy are much harder to bear in a time of affluence than in a period of depression, when so many are in the same position. To be unemployed and redundant when there are more "haves" than "have-nots" is very demoralising.
We have heard much today of redundancy being part of automation. Automation will be the biggest industrial headache of the 'seventies, if not of the late 'sixties. To use a broadcasting term, it is still at the "cat's whisker" stage, but I am sure that even in our own lifetime it will develop out of all knowledge. Redundancy is an ugly word, and perhaps not expressive of what we are trying to convey in this debate. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary gives it as meaning excessive, superfluous, pleonastic…" One of the most bitter experiences there can be in life
1036
is for a man to find himself superfluous in society, particularly when it is not through a fault of his own or any particular failing. It becomes a very big issue—
Mr. Gresham Cooke: A good deal of fear has been expressed on both sides today about automation. It is a problem, but would not my hon. Friend agree that automation, in the sense of manual work or work done by machines tended by men being done automatically, has been with us for about thirty years? It is not new.
Mr. Dudley Smith: It is not new, I agree, but it is developing out of all knowledge, because technology has made tremendous strides even in the short time I have been on the surface of the earth, and it will develop beyond all expectation in twenty or thirty years. This is not just a problem relating to manual workers, but on both sides the tendency has been too much to relate it to the manual operation of machines. The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford gave some very useful facts, and mentioned an interesting case involving white-collar workers. Every worker, whether professional or artisan, is entitled to look for security in his employment if, in return, he is to give his loyalty and industry. As automation develops, probably as many white-collar workers as manual workers will be affected.
I should have thought that satisfactory industrial progress cannot possibly be maintained if men have a continual fear of the sack because of redundancy. Many of the country's best firms have proved already that realistic redundancy schemes can lead to improvement in turnover and in profits, and I am certain that other firms will have to follow suit in due course. On the other hand, we must be realistic; with the best will in the world we cannot make it quite certain that all firms can provide security in an age of technological change and varying trading conditions.
Firms change with new trade conditions, and some go out of business. We must therefore be flexible all the way round. No one undertaking can promise a particular employee a job for life, and all of us, however good we may be at our jobs, must face the time when,

1037
inevitably, we may have to change. I should have thought that we, as Members of Parliament would particularly appreciate that point.
It is true to say that in this enlightened society any man who plays an important part, who marries, brings up a family and gives his loyalty and skill to a firm, must in return be able to expect a decent job and a decent standard of living. That view is now accepted on both sides more than it has ever been before, but we must avoid paying too much lip-service to it and not doing enough about it.
The biggest problem to be learned by both sides of industry is that although redundancy cannot be avoided, it can be deflected and its effects mitigated. Advanced industrial planning is the key to the whole problem. In this, as in other industrial spheres, there is need for co-operation between management and employees, and need for the Government to tie the ends together. There must be better appreciation and understanding of automation, particularly of its techniques and development, and not a fear of it. That is why I think that the studies initiated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour are vitally important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn & St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith) and I have asked Parliamentary Questions on the subject, as did the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford the other day, and we have been promised a report in due course of what is going on—
Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I agree with all that my hon. Friend says, but would not he agree that much could be done by managements giving bad news as well as good; imparting knowledge to workers as the company progresses so that they feel part of the set-up? Keeping workers in the picture goes a long way towards mitigating bad news.
Mr. Dudley Smith: I agree—there is a tremendous public relations job to be tackled within industry itself, and I do not think that enough is being done in that direction at present. Some industries and firms make a good job of it; others must follow suit. Greater research is needed, and I hope that my
1038
right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary will give the necessary impetus.
In the long run, co-operation is the only way of settling the problem. We have heard of recalcitrant managements—as long as they do not co-operate to the full, and unless the two sides get together, particularly on automation, there will be severe trouble for industry and its workers. We all know that tough management operates in some fields, and tough management and an overcrowded labour market may do quite well for a time, but eventually it will come unstuck, just as trade unions that go about things the wrong way will only do a disservice to their members. But there are other dangers in redundancy and automation that go a little beyond the confrontation between employers and employees. Even with a sympathetic approach, and even given good will, these attitudes will have to be watched very carefully by the Government of the day, whatever its political complexion.
This is becoming an age of qualifications and specialisation. It will probably reach the stage, even in my lifetime, when nobody will be able to get a job in the professions or in management without a university degree, and when nobody will be able to undertake skilled work of any sort without having the requisite number of school examination passes that may then be in operation. This is good in many respects but, in other ways, if we are not careful, we shall be creating a new élite and a new poor—a new poor who will be poor in both earning capacity and in spirit.
That may well be accentuated by a rapid development of automation, which is not kept easily in check. The effects could be dreadful in the long-term, and I very much hope that the Minister of Labour of the day, and of the future, will, with his colleagues in the Cabinet, keep a continual watch on the tendency to divide the nation into the skilled and the unskilled.
At the moment, as we all know, there is a scramble in the industrial and labour markets for youth. It is common for hon. Members on both sides of the House to be approached by people who are fit in mind and limb and who desperately want jobs, but who, because of

1039
their age, cannot get them. This, again, is a very serious problem which emphasises itself to us far too often. This constant scramble for youth has its dangers. We used to hear that people were too old at 60. It is now becoming common for people to be too old at 50, and probably in due course they will be too old at 40. Unless we make the fullest use of our labour resources, we shall not develop our industrial markets to their widest extent.
More emphasis must be placed on retraining, and in education we must develop the concept of people with two skills at their disposal. There are clever people who can do a variety of jobs, but too many have developed only one talent, and if a man's talent goes out of commission as a result of industrial change he finds himself stranded. We must all try to develop extra skills. Members of Parliament are adept at this because their lives in the House of Commons are tenuous. Outside the House there are extra skills to be learned simply and easily, and the acquisition of these can ease many pains in the long term.
The cardinal rule for employers must be that redundancy provisions, should become a normal part of management outlook. Redundancy should be taken into consideration at all levels—at the level of recruitment when a person enters an industry, at the level of training—and the Industrial Training Act which has just come into force will be very useful here—at the promotional level when people take executive responsibility, and at the retirement level when the time comes to make way for other people.
I support the Motion. I should particularly like my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to say something about the development of the services provided by employment exchanges. I think that today's debate will have done some good. One of the snags about Parliament is that we debate all too infrequently the question of industrial change and difficulty, just as we debate too infrequently the questions of education. But at least some of the doors have been opened today and there has been a good airing. Retraining will remain of paramount importance. We have got to adopt the technique of
1040
changing old skills for new ones. As times goes on, I think that we shall find that a reasonably good start has been made, and I look forward, during the course of the next Parliament, to seeing the necessary legislation introduced at an early stage. This applies to any Government, whatever its political colour.
A Government of any complexion will ignore at its own peril the changes which are likely to take place in industry through automation. In addition, that Government will ignore these changes at the peril of the country's interests at large, for whatever ensues from the longterm policy as decided by any Government, the interests of its people must remain paramount.
6.4 p.m.
Mr. Robert Edwards: I join with hon. Members on both sides of the House in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) on introducing a Motion of such importance and in such a practical and eloquent way.
I was greatly interested in the speech that we have heard from the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Dudley Smith). It was very stimulating. There was an absence of complacency which, so far, has characterised many of the speeches that have been made from the benches opposite. I agree with the hon. Member that we are only just beginning to consider the revolutionary economic and social consequences of the application of automation and electronic devices in British industry and agriculture.
It is perfectly true, as one hon. Member has said, that automation has been operating in British industry for many years. This is particularly true of the great chemical industry, the motor car industry in particular and the engineering industry in general. Automation is complete in the new atomic energy industry.
The picture today of the chemical and motor car industries is the blue print for all our basic industries. This is the kind of development that is to take place in the coal mining industry. In the future many of our coalmines will become vast underground chemical factories. Our steel industries will be

1041
completely rationalised automatically, employing fewer and fewer workers. Unless there is active co-operation now between the Government, managements and trade unions, and unless we begin to control the second industrial revolution which is unfolding before our eyes, the troubles that we had in the 1930s and the mass unemployment that occurred in those days will seem like a picnic compared with what we shall face in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford dealt with a number of redundancy agreements which operate in British industry. He quoted the Imperial Chemical Industries agreement. I can assure him that it is not the best agreement which operates in the chemical industry. If I may be permitted to say so, I think that the company over which the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) has some influence has a much better arrangement and agreement.
Mr. Dodds: I am interested in what my hon. Friend is saying, but he appears to have forgotten what I said. I did not say that the I.C.I. agreement was the best one. I said that it was an agreement for the protection of employment and that it placed the proper emphasis on what we all want, namely, employment and not redundancy payments.
Mr. Edwards: I understand my hon. Friend's point. However, it should not be accepted that one firm in Britain has produced the perfect agreement. Indeed, some of the agreements in our nationalised industries are among the best.
These agreements have not been granted to the trade unions without a struggle. All these agreements have been negotiated in the most prosperous industries. Let us not forget that. They have been negotiated in industries with expanding production, in industries where there is a shortage of labour, in some industries like chemicals, for example, that have never known a slump, industries which have vast sums of liquid capital, which can introduce new methods of production and new technical devices, which have the capital necessary to enable the introduction of
1042
these new methods that have increased the volume of production.
By negotiation with the unions, they have given advance information of their intentions to introduce automatic methods that will put so many men and women out of employment. By negotiation they have established methods for training the staff and workers who are likely to be made redundant, to enable them to do new jobs and create new products in the same factory.
Time is limited, and I want to raise one or two fundamental points rather than repeat what has already been said. In Soviet Russia, there is a Minister of Automation whose task is to establish training facilities to produce 500,000 new technicians skilled in the knowledge of automatic processes and electronics. In 10 years, the Soviet Union will have 2½ million trained technicians—more technicians than there are in the whole of the Western World put together. The Russians are dealing with the matter in a realistic way. In the United States, there is a permanent standing commission to deal with the problems of automation, the social, economic and technical problems, problems of leisure, the mobility of labour, wages and so on.
We have no such facilities in this country, yet we are the nation which started the Industrial Revolution, which was the cradle of modern methods of production. We have not started to deal with this massive problem yet. The future of our country is based on our ability to increase the production of wealth. If we fail steadily to increase our productivity in this country, the living standards of our people will be shattered. We shall have to introduce in most of our basic industries modern methods of production which will reduce the amount of labour power required and increase production very greatly indeed.
If we are to avoid economic crisis, we shall have to devise a method of improving the purchasing power of our people so that they can buy the products of mass production. These are vast economic and social problems with which the Government are not dealing.
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford for his mention of the modest Bill which I

1043
tried to introduce in 1955, the Automation and Electronics Bill. All I wanted the Government to do was to establish a permanent committee representative of all sections of industry, the nationalised industries, the trade unions and the consumers, served by economists and technicians of repute, which would be responsible for a constant flow of ideas and reports on the requirements of technical training for new methods of production, the problems of the mobility of labour and the social problems involved, the problems of incomes, shorter working hours, training for leisure, and the rest. That is all I wanted the House to do, but I did not even get a debate on the Bill. It was blocked every Friday by some hon. Members opposite who thought that it was Socialism by homeopathic treatment, and that it was my aim to control the business of industrialists.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) wishes to speak, so I will conclude by once more thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford for giving us this brief opportunity to debate a subject which is of vital importance to the House and to our country's future.
6.13 p.m.
Mr. Ray Gunter: We all congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) for bringing this matter, if only for a short time, before the House. One day, we may be able to have a really good debate about it and on that day, perhaps, we shall hire a bus, send all the Whips away and really express our views.
There is sometimes a tendency to be a little gloomy about this subject. I am getting on a bit now, but I find this challenging period of technical revolution to be one of the most exciting in history. I do not know what the Victorian theologians would have thought about it, but I believe that it may well be a period in which the curse laid upon Adam,
"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread"
will pass. The day of hard manual toil may go. That curse has been used over the years, in one sense, as a religious discipline, at least upon the working class,
1044
and people have been encouraged to look for the crown in the future if they would subject themselves to the discipline of hard manual labour. But there is at this time a possibility—I put it no higher—that we shall reach a stage when the true creative aptitudes of men will be better employed than in the dreary drudgery and routine of manual toil.
I say at the outset that I hope that none of us, trade unionists, industrialists or Members of the House of Commons, will be too much obsessed by the enormous difficulties, for it we are, we may fail to present to the people of this country the glorious opportunities which await us if we are prepared to adapt and adjust ourselves to what is coming. Severance pay is very important, of course. It is one of the most important aspects of the matter with which we have to deal. But, for heaven's sake, let us not make it the priority. For heaven's sake, let us ensure that it is but a part of the solution of our major problems.
One of the difficulties which I encounter—perhaps other hon. Members have the same experience—is in finding the facts. It is one of the most joyous exercises of all sorts of people, politicians, economists and the rest, to throw figures at us about what will happen in the next ten years. Millions of new jobs will be required, by 1969 there will be 1½ million unskilled workers redundant, and so on. I do not know the true facts. Therefore, the first point I make is that it is the duty of the Government to tackle, as a matter of priority, the ascertaining of as many as possible of the facts upon which we can base our policies for the future.
We need a new scale of thinking about redundancy and industrial mobility, and for this purpose we shall have to get to know a great deal more about the problems involved. It is strange that, even at this time, there are few industries which know how many apprentices they now have, let alone how many skilled men they will want in ten years. An enormous amount of research will have to be done so that we may have as accurately as possible an assessment of the situation which can then be put to the nation, with these words "These are the facts as we see them. Now let us get down to the consequences which flow from them". I have sufficient faith in the genius and ability of our people to believe

1045
that we can embrace all the changes which are to come and adapt ourselves to them if we have the facts.
Mr. Curran: I entirely endorse what the hon. Gentleman says about the need for more facts. Will he agree that, in addition to the facts to which he has called attention, we need to have the exact facts about the extent of job pension schemes so that we can proceed not by samples or pilot surveys but know in detail precisely what is happening on that side of employment?
Mr. Gunter: I entirely agree, but, since I am trying to embrace the whole technical revolution in about fifteen minutes, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will let me use just one illustration.
The Government—let us be fair about it—have shown an awareness of the need to assemble as many facts as possible, but I wonder whether the steps which they are taking can lead to the assembly of the facts in a short enough time. As I understand it, participation by firms in the supply of the information which we want is at present purely voluntary. A lot of field work is, I know, being done by the Ministry of Labour's regional offices in trying to persuade firms to co-operate. Quite a lot of work is being done in the construction industry in consultation with the Ministry of Public Building and Works. But are we dealing with the problem of the assembly of the information that we want as a matter of priority?
As far as I can see, what the Government have done so far can be regarded only as a start. They are a bit late, and they are trying to assemble only a little of all the information that we want. The major projects are being based on voluntary returns from firms of their own estimated requirements. Experience shows that surveys of this kind invariably under-estimate the pace of change. There is little evidence in this country of what has been done in other industrial nations, and that is research in depth based on scientific techniques to lead us to the right conclusions.
What I think we need as a matter of urgency is the type of analysis which has been started by Professor Richard Stone at Cambridge. He does not claim to be precise, but he has assembled certain facts and statistics which give us
1046
an indication of how the technical revolution, even in its earlier stages, is working out. Professor Stone and his colleagues have based their facts on certain assessments of economic growth over the next few years and have anticipated changes within the more important industries.
I suggest to the Minister that it is necessary to draw up fairly detailed categories of jobs skill, in view of possible redundancies. It is necessary then to know, as far as possible, by how much each industry is likely to expand. After that it is possible to calculate within rough limits the number of people needed at each level of skill.
These are figures which can be more or less proved to a stage and then become a measure of speculation over the next seven years. I refer to the change in tie required skill within the manpower force. It is assessed that the managerial staffs, as a percentage of our labour force, will continue to rise, and must rise, until at least 1970. It is assessed that at the same time the clerical staffs will considerably decline in number.
The significant assessment is this. As far as can be ascertained, the percentage of unskilled workers in 1951 was 12·8 of our male labour force. In 1961, it was 15. However, it is assessed that by 1970—and I think that in the end this will be found to be a fairly accurate assessment—unskilled labour will have declined to a figure no more than 7 per cent. of the labour force. Therefore, we appear to be passing into a decade which be termed "the twilight of unskilled labour".
Professor Stone and his colleagues do not claim to be precise about this startling assessment, but it is at least an indication of the trend. They estimate that vie shall require a net addition of 155,000 craftsmen each year and a subtraction of 151,000 unskilled workers each year. It is assessed that by 1970 there will be a net annual increase of 55,000 technicians and 50,000 technically qualified people and, at the same time, a net reduction of almost 50,000 clerical workers. These are the patterns which are emerging.
I emphasised at the beginning that what we want are the facts. There is

1047
too much talk on a basis which cannot be proved. The matter is of importance because of one fact. I say from my experience of dealing with redundancy that we should never exaggerate the number of men who will be affected. One of the worst features of modern industrial managements is that when redundancy problems face them, instead of quietly sitting down and analysing them from their various aspects, they boldly and baldly announce that thousands may be affected, with the result that they unnecessarily frighten a great many people. In the limited time at my disposal, I do not wish to say any more about the question of the assembly of information.
Much has been made about adult training. I do not think it does any good to try to score party points in a debate like this. I hope that the Minister will not misunderstand me when I say that we have not looked at the question of industrial training on a big enough canvas. I know that it will be claimed that the Industrial Training Bill will do this and that, but, comparing what we are doing in this country with what is being done in Russia and America, our efforts over the next two years can only be described as derisory. It could well be found that we are making provision only for the training of one redundant person out of approximately 60. Our targets must be much more ambitious.
One of my hon. Friends said that we should be setting ourselves the target of training and retraining no fewer than 100,000 men a year. That is the only figure which by the 1970s will have given us a measure of escape from what is likely to happen. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) intervened to say that we have had this state of affairs for 30 years. Of course, we have not. We have had mechanical processes which have displaced men. But the opportunities of this period and of this time are much greater. We know that whatever increase there may be in the volume of as yet unproduced consumer goods in the technical revolution each new industry—one might call it each scientifically based industry—which emerges will be fully automated from the beginning and therefore there will be no new industries into which large battalions of labour will be directed.
1048
We look forward inevitably and, I trust, hopefully to the gradual decline in the number of jobs. We face the problem of how to canalise and distribute the rewards which flow from this technical revolution. That is the fundamental reason why I am a democratic Socialist.
Mr. Gresham Cooke: It may be that the intensity of the problem is new, but the problem itself is not new. We have had automatic machinery for the last 30 or 40 years. The electric telegraph and railway train, when they came in, displaced the horse and coach and the carrying of letters on the road by horse and coach.
Mr. Gunter: The old stage coach and the train each had two men. We are within sight of the driverless train. This will come about within five years. Again men will be displaced. However, I take the hon. Member's point.
There are much wider ranging problems which I should have liked the opportunity to discuss, but I have not the time to do so. In the few minutes available to me, I want to say a word on three points.
First, I believe that we shall surmount the difficulties that face us only in so far as we have a partnership between the Government, management and employees. I do not for a moment think that industry itself can solve the problem, and I am darned sure no Government can solve it. There must be the closest co-operation. Therefore, it is incumbent on the Government to provide as quickly as possible the maximum of information upon which we can base our assessments.
I may run some risk in saying this about the duty of the Government in this place which is the guardian temple of individual liberty, but it could well be that a little tough leadership will be necessary. In saying this, I have in mind the complete reliance on voluntary methods to which the British people are so accustomed and by means of which in some ways they find an outlet for their laziness. It may well be that the Government will have to give tough and hard leadership in the solution of some of these problems by bringing employers and trade unions to an understanding of what is required from them in this period of change.

1049
Having asked the Government to give the fullest facts and leadership, I should like to say a word about management. Everybody blasts the unions. When hon. Members opposite have nothing better to do over the weekend, they think "Let us have a blast at the unions.'' There has already been reference by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) to wildcat strikes and what is involved in all this. If one talks to some of the best of the industrialists today, they will go on record as saying that more than half of the wildcat strikes and so on are due entirely to bad management. Therefore, how can one talk about bringing in industrial discipline in dealing with the problem? Management itself has a great deal of work to do. If industrial training is necessary for craftsmen and for workmen, it is equally necessary for management. It is absolutely necessary today that management should understand that it has a tremendous part to play and that if one happens to come from a public school, that does not necessarily qualify one for a job in top-level management.
Management has a job to do, and particularly in this field it has a duty to undertake. As we face the consequences of change and the redundancy that flows from it, one thing management has to give priority to is the handling of industrial relations. It must give a lead. It has been said from this side of the House that when men are insecure and faced with redundancy they are not always rational. I am darned sure I should not be rational if I were going to be put out of my job. Therefore, there is a duty on the part of management to do whatever it can in industrial relations.
As my last point, I would say a word to my trade union friends. Unless they are prepared to adapt and change their attitude, we shall be in a right mess. I would say to some of my trade union colleagues that it is very nice to hold fast to historic wage structures and very nice to put on the altar and guard differentials which were relevant in differing days when differing processes were applied in industry. But they will have to sit down and come much closer together and understand that the wage structures in the future and the differen-
1050
tials that flow from them have to be seen in the light of an automated works and not in the light of what existed in 1937 and 1938.
Given Government leadership, and having the facts, I believe that management will play its part and that the trade unions will play theirs. I suggest to the House that if we have sufficient faith in our people and tough leadership at the top, we can surmount many of the difficulties that are bothering us.
I conclude as I started. For goodness sake, do not let us get too obsessed with all the problems and difficulties. Rather would I like to go on the platforms of the country and tell our people that if now they will change their ways and exercise the disciplines which they ought to, the opportunities that lie before this nation, which still has the finest craftsmen in the world, are limitless and Britain can still be a very great Power.
6.35 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. William Whitelaw): I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) for giving us this opportunity of discussing an extremely important subject. I congratulate him on his comprehensive speech, and thank him for his courtesy in letting me know in advance some of the points that he wished to raise.
I agree with the hon. Member that this subject represents a fascinating study. It is certainly one on which it is extremely difficult to limit one's remarks within a given period. I am very conscious that I have something of a reputation for being carried away past the time that is available to me. I should like to give notice now, in case I should be carried away on this occasion, that I have every intention of resuming my seat in time to ensure that the House passes the Motion. Although, having left the realm in which I used to live, I might be tempted to agree with the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) about the best place for the Whips, I assure him that on this occasion I think that a Whip close to me would be a very good thing.
In replying for the Government, I want to base what I have to say on two simple and widely accepted premises. First, as the hon. Member for Southwark stressed, in what I think the whole House

1051
would agree was an extremely interesting and very wise speech, our nation will be economically strong only if we are prepared to accept rapid technological change and take full advantage of the opportunities which it offers. Secondly, and no less important, we must attach the highest priority to overcoming the human problems which the resulting changes in our employment pattern inevitably create. It is necessary to appreciate what this involves. I assure the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) that I am certainly not complacent about it.
I start by giving some indication of the employment changes which have taken place in recent years and the trends which we must expect in the future.
Since the war nearly 1 million new jobs have been created in engineering industries, nearly ¾ million in financial, professional and other services and more than ½ million in the distributive trades. In the same period the numbers employed in agriculture have fallen by ¼ million, there are more than 150,000 fewer people employed in the mines, over 100,000 fewer in the textile industries and over 50,000 fewer in shipbuilding.
The balance, therefore, has been favourable. There has been a net increase in the total working population during the post-war years of more than 2½ million people. Much of this increase has come from the employment of married women. These figures show clearly what rapid and extensive changes can take place in the composition of the labour force in a few years.
In the future we cannot assume that the pattern will be exactly the same, but some of these trends at least are likely to persist. The total numbers at work will continue to grow, though a little more slowly, partly for population reasons and partly because we cannot expect women's employment to continue to increase at the same rate.
There will, no doubt, be further declines in some sectors, such as agriculture and mining. On the other hand, the service industries, already numerically more important than manufacturing industries, will certainly continue to
1052
increase. In manufacturing industry we shall see a continuation of the trend towards the employment of more white collar workers. This is in the administrative, technical and clerical jobs. I would also agree with the hon. Member for Southwark that we may well be passing into what he described as the twilight of unskilled labour.
These are the general trends, but it is clear that if we are to assess accurately training requirements and give good advice to young people in their choice of career, we must give more precise information.
This, of course, is what the Motion requires when it refers to manpower planning, and this point has been emphasised by the hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford himself and by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Dudley Smith). It was to obtain such information that the Ministry of Labour, a year ago, set up the Manpower Research Unit. The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford asked for some further information about this.
The full-time staff of the unit at headquarters is now 18. In addition, a large number of the staff in our Statistics Department and in the regions are involved in the work of the surveys. Also, the work of the unit is supplemented by a number of academic research projects. I would like to assure the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford that we are associated with these.
Besides looking at the general picture, the unit is now going into some of these trends in greater detail. As the House already knows, the unit is conducting special surveys of the metal manufacturing and metal using industries and the construction industries and has recently launched an inquiry into the effect of computers on office employment. By means of all these studies the unit hopes to throw some light not only on the future general distribution of manpower between industries but, of equal importance, on the likely changes in the occupational structures in these industries.
It is a commonplace that the increasing concentration of industry into larger units and the introduction of more advanced techniques in leading to increased demands for people with higher qualifications and skills.
Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Could my hon. Friend tell us when he expects the unit to report on office employment?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am coming to that in just a moment.
This, clearly, has important implications for our systems of education and industrial training. The unit is examining these trends in an attempt to discover more clearly which categories of workers are being affected by these economic and technological changes, and—and this, I think, and hope, answers the question of my hon Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith)—is hoping to publish some of the results of this work this summer. By setting up the unit the Government have shown in a practical way their commitment to manpower planning and we hope that the information which the unit publishes will make it easier for industries and firms alike to plan their own manpower requirements.
At industry level the industrial inquiries of the National Economic Development Council have thrown up a great deal of information which can provide a most useful basis for further work both by employers' associations and also individual employers for the assessment of their own needs. I would have thought that the work of N.E.D.C. and all the "little Neddies" which have been set up gives some sort of answer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bilston, who said that when he introduced a Bill he did not get a debate in the House.
There will also be an important rôle in the field of manpower planning for the boards to be set up under the new Industrial Training Act which became law last Thursday, and which, as the House heard at Question Time today, is being implemented with the greatest possible speed by my right hon. Friend.
Forward planning of manpower is not only important at industry level. It is also essential in the individual firm. No employer would think of handling his financial affairs on a day-to-day basis. He would be wanting to look at least a year ahead, often much further. Surely he has like need to look ahead at his manpower supply.
1054
This was stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick, in what I thought a most interesting speech. If a potential redundancy is foreseen well in advance it will often be possible to avoid it altogether or at least to keep it to manageable size. Here, I would agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southwark that it is a great mistake to exaggerate in advance the likely scale of a redundancy. All experience goes to show the truth of that remark.
At the same time, it is certainly not in the best interests of the nation, the employer, or, indeed, of those employed in the firm, for workers to be kept on when productive employment cannot be provided for them. But the employer will be able to do much to minimise dismissals by adjusting recruiting, providing alternative work, and retraining redundant workers for other jobs within the firm—provided always that he has time for these things, and only forward planning can give him the time.
Dr. Jeremy Bray Dr. Jeremy Bray (Middlesbrough, West)rose——
Mr. Whitelaw: I am very sorry I cannot give way. I did my best to allow as many hon. Members to take part in the debate as possible before I spoke, and I want to answer as many of the points as I pan. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate why I cannot give way.
We must not think that the effects of redundancy are confined to those who lose their jobs. The fear of redundancy and the feeling of insecurity which it engenders can affect the workers in a firm, or indeed in an industry, with far-reaching effects on industrial relations and on productivity, and a lot of damage can be done where the workers are kept in the dark about what is happening, so that gossip and rumours are given a free field. This is why it is so important that workers, through their representatives, should be taken into the confidence of the management at the earliest possible moment—I was very glad to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) said in an intervention about this.
I also feel that it is most important that the maximum amount of warning should be given to individuals who will

1055
be affected. The Contracts of Employment Act, which comes into force next July, sets minimum requirements for notice, but I would emphasise here, as we did throughout the passage of the Bill, that that is a minimum, and that the good employer will, I think, want to give a much longer period of warning than mere compliance with these requirements would satisfy.
As was very properly stressed by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford and by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick and others, what the redundant worker most wants is a new job. I am glad that the hon. Member, in his Motion, has referred to the part which the employment exchange services can play in meeting the problems of redundancy. The employment exchanges have a carefully devised and highly flexible procedure for dealing with redundancy as soon as the exchanges are informed of forthcoming redundancies in their areas. They make arrangements to register the workers who wish to use the Ministry's services as far in advance of the date of discharge as possible. Each worker is given a full employment interview and efforts are made to put him in touch with employers who have suitable vacancies.
In many cases, I can say to my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Turner), who made the interesting point about housing, employers agree that offices may be set up at factories where the redundancies are taking place, as has happened in the case of the Royal Ordnance Factory at Woolwich. This often saves a good deal of time, and sometimes lists of vacancies are put up so that workers can indicate those in which they are interested. Redundant workers are considered for local jobs and special approaches are made to likely employers who may have vacancies. In addition, suitable vacancies in other areas which are circulated through the employment exchange machinery are brought to the notice of redundant workers who are willing to take jobs away from home.
If a redundant worker wants to work in a particular area away from home, arrangements can be made to find him a suitable vacancy in that area. I can
1056
only say that, of course, with all this work it greatly helps our employment exchanges if employers give good notice of any forthcoming vacancies.
Mr. Mendelson Mr. Mendelson rose——
Mr. Whitelaw: I am sorry I cannot give way. I refused just now to give way to another hon. Member.
Mr. Mendelson Mr. Mendelson rose——
Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Member spoke for a very long time himself and I am trying very hard to answer as many points as I can and to conclude before seven o'clock.
Mr. Mendelson: What about the breakdown at Ford's?
Mr. Whitelaw: Some hon. Members have referred to the relatively small part played by the employment exchanges in placing redundant workers from English Electric at Stevenage and Luton, as described by Mrs. Dorothy Wedderburn in her interesting study, "White Collar Redundancy".
I think that it must be pointed out that the Stevenage and Luton areas are good employment areas with a high demand for labour, particularly skilled labour. Many of the men concerned were in scarcity occupations, draughtsman, technicians, inspectors, and so on, who could obtain jobs quickly by applying direct to nearby firms or answering newspaper advertisements. Also, English Electric invited 160 other employers to visit the premises and engage people direct.
It should also be stated that the value of an employment exchange's work in a redundancy of this sort cannot be judged solely in terms of the placings which it makes. Frequently, a man obtains a job on his own as a result of help and advice which he has received at the employment exchange. Nevertheless, we have to realise that in the minds of some workers, and, indeed, some employers, there is a prejudice against the employment exchange. They are apt to regard it mainly as a place for paying out "the dole." I am very glad to have this opportunity of stressing publicly how keen everyone in the Ministry of Labour is to eradicate this misleading and out-of-date image. We shall be most grateful for any assistance or

1057
advice that hon. Members can give us in this task in their own constituencies.
During the last two years, I have had the good fortune to visit many employment exchanges in all parts of the country. I realise that the building itself and its location in the town are extremely important factors. I think that anyone who has seen some of the new employment exchange buildings will agree that they are both attractive and modern. I should like also to tell the House how struck I have been by the enthusiasm and efficiency of the staffs. They are extremely anxious to play their full part in providing a placing service with human understanding.
In her study Mrs. Wedderburn also referred to the more specialised service provided by the Professional and Executive Register. I think hon. Members know the purpose of this service, which is operated at 38 of our larger employment exchanges. It caters for those, among others, whose good administrative jobs overseas have ended when Colonial Territories have gained their independence, and also for those who have retired from responsible positions in Her Majesty's Forces. I am sure that the House will agree that the resettlement of these people is extremely important.
In 1963, 6,000 placings were made, and I have here a few examples of them. A consultant barrister was placed as a computer manager at £2,800 a year. An I.L.O. vacancy for a senior industrial engineer was filled at £4,300 a year, plus expenses. I should like to stress to the House that we have many good candidates on the register, frequently from people in employment, who want to exchange their jobs. We would, therefore, welcome more co-operation from employers in notifying vacancies. This would give rise to a wider range of openings. I am sometimes surprised to see that some employers spend considerable sums of money in inserting advertisements without even trying to find out whether they could meet their requirements through a free service.
Hon. Members have rightly stressed the importance of training and retraining in any programme of readjustment. Here, I agree very much with the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick
1058
that it is important that young people who come into industry should receive training which is sufficiently broadly based for them to adapt themselves to technical change later in their lives, and to undertake retraining if necessary. I am rather disturbed when I hear of young people receiving an unnecessarily narrow and specialised training. If changes labs should make that training out of date, they will be in almost as bad a position as if they had received no training at all.
The Industrial Training Act recognises the shared responsibility of the employers, the unions and the world of education for seeing that the training given to young people reaches a sufficiently high standard. One aspect of that responsibility will be to see that the training, takes into account the likelihood of continuing technical change. This is a very important feature of the duties which the Act will place on the new industrial training boards. Their first task wall undoubtedly be concerned with the training of young people, and I should like to make it perfectly clear that they have responsibility for all forms of training, and adult retraining comes into that as well.
In the shorter term, the Government's main contribution is the expansion of facilities for the training and retraining of adults at Government training centres. I should like to say, in this connection, that I was greatly heartened recently when I visited the new centre at Dunfermline and talked to some of the trainees, ninny of them former miners from areas affected by closures. I was delighted to find that they were extremely enthusiastic and felt that they had been given new hope by the training they were receiving, and were looking forward to taking their places in industry again as skilled workers. I think that their enthusiasm was tremendous and it deserves every possible encouragement.
Some hon. Members, notably the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford and the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock) have suggested that our programme is inadequate to satisfy the need. I was rather impressed by what was said by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson). I believe that we have to be guided by experience, and

1059
match the facilities, as far as possible, to the demand, while remaining reasonably satisfied that both the kind of training that we give and the numbers we train are in line with the jobs available.
I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate how important this is if we are to obtain the support and co-operation of employers and trade unions which we need and which we hope to receive without reservation. But I should like to agree with what hon. Members have said that we must, and we will, keep a very close eye on the situation as it develops and remain prepared to make whatever changes may be justified in our programme.
I noted what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) and the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford about instructors, We have, in fact, courses for the instructors and we are certainly looking into that aspect of it.
I turn to the last, but certainly not the least, important requirement of the Motion. The Government are keenly aware that one of the major problems of industrial change is the financial loss which it can bring to a worker through a spell of unemployment or a possible fall in earnings unless proper plans are made. That is why I welcome the reference to "financial provision for redundancy". During the Second Reading debate of the Private Member's Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. J. Silverman) my right hon. Friend went into this problem in considerable detail and also gave the House a full account of the Government's consultations with industry. I shall not go over the same ground again. I shall not be tempted to test my mathematics with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West or come between him and the hon. Member for Southwark on the question of carrots and their size.
These are some of the ways in which we are seeking to solve the human problems involved in the changing pattern of our industry. Many hon. Members have suggested ways in which our services could be improved. I can assure them that their constructive ideas will be most
1060
carefully studied. When, as in this case, we are dealing with matters very important to individual men and women one can never, indeed should never, be satisfied. Nevertheless, I have sought to show the House just how much the Government are already doing and indeed thereby to counter some of the criticisms which have been made.
I am sure that it will be the general view of the House that the Motion which we are debating has enabled us to have a helpful and constructive debate. By their actions and in their plans the Government have given ample proof that they accept its terms.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House, appreciating the human problems caused by technological change in industry, urges Her Majesty's Government, in co-operation with employers and trade unions, to take steps to alleviate any consequential hardship to individuals by means of manpower planning and research, development of the services provided by employment exchanges, schemes of training and retraining and financial provision for redundancy.

SCOTLAND (EMPLOYMENT OF YOUNG PERSONS)
6.59 p.m.
Mr. James H. Hoy: I beg to move,
That this House views with concern the continuing high rate of unemployment among young people in Scotland, resulting in their leaving their own country to find employment elsewhere; and calls on the Government to speed-up training facilities and industrial development in Scotland, so that young Scots may equip themselves to meet the needs for a diversified industry, and be given an opportunity of finding employment in their own country.
All I can do now is to say that I have enjoyed the debate which has just ended and express my great regret that we did not find time to discuss unemployment among young people in Scotland. I well understand the reason for the previous debate occupying all the private Members' time available.
The outlook for young people in Scotland is exceedingly bad and I am sure that if we had had time we could have had just as interesting a debate as the one which the House has just finished.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  HARBOURS BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  HARBOURS BILL

    Clause 22.—(CHARGES OF CERTAIN HARBOUR AUTHORITIES.)
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: I beg to move, in page 24, line 35, after "such," to insert "reasonable".
    Mr. Speaker: I imagine that it would be for die convenience of the House to discuss with this Amendment the Amendments in page 24, lines 36 and 38, page 25, line 28, and page 80, line 48.
    Mr. Irvine: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
    The House should be fully aware of what the Bill does in regard to the matter of charges. The effects of the Bill are important and widespread. This is partly the case because the expression "charges", which is defined in the definition Clause, Clause 53, covers a large number of matters which are there enumerated. "Charges"
    "includes fares, rates, tolls and dues of every description".
    Under the existing law, the charges that may be imposed by harbour and clock authorities for the various services which they offer are subject to a whole host of restrictions of one kind or another and restrictions which, in many instances, are formidable in character. These restrictions are included for the most part, I understand, in Private Acts, but a large number are comprised in public enactments. As an example of the kind of public enactment which has an important bearing in this respect, I quote the Transport Act which became law as recently as 1962.
    The kind of machinery adopted in that Act relative to charges was as follows. In a Schedule, the Act set out a list of harbours where charges under the Act would be applicable. It provided in broad outline, that it would not be permissible to increase charges in those harbours beyond a certain percentage above a level of charge which had prevailed a previous dates which were
    1062
    enumerated in the Act. That was the mechanism employed. It is not necessary to go further into detail. The point is that it was an elaborate mechanism which Parliament, as recently as 1962, thought it wise and right to apply in certain important harbours scheduled in the Act.
    As to the level of charges, the restrictions were in many respects strict in character, permitting only comparatively small percentage increases from charges that had applied, in some cases, only a short time previously. It is important that in considering the Amendment, the House should recognise that the Bill sweeps overboard the whole elaborate fabric which has existed in public and in private enactments to keep charges under restraint. On any showing, that is a serious thing to do. It is a peculiarly serious thing to do so soon after Parliament has passed an Act like the Transport Act, 1962.
    The position as proposed in the Bill is that the sky is now to be the limit. The only restraint which is imposed is that contained in Clause 27, which enables certain classes of person to object to certain types of charge. If the National Ports Council, which it is proposed to create, upholds the objection, it may give a direction to the harbour authority. In addition, there is, it is true, the overriding power which the Bill confers upon the Minister after a scheme has been submitted by the Council to revise ship, passenger and goods dues. That is provided for it Clause 28.
    The point which we think it right to draw to the attention of the House is that within those somewhat, it may be thought, cumbersome and remote provisions provided by Clauses 27 and 28, there is no restraint or restriction whatever upon harbour and dock authorities, upon the charges which they may exact. We take the view that in principle that is undesirable.
    It is right to say that throughout our considerations of the Bill in Standing Committee, both sides received assistance from the representations made to them by the Docks and Harbour Authorities Association and its spokesmen. In a considerable number of instances, we took up the position in our consideration of matters in Committee that there was great substance in the cases which they brought

    1063
    forward and the arguments which they desired to have addressed to the Committee. The relations of both sides with the Association were cordial throughout, as it was right that they should be. Let no one think, therefore, that in expressing the view as I do, that this provision in Clause 22 concerning charges gives too much freedom to the harbour and dock authorities, that I am motivated by any lack of respect and admiration for Mr. Lamborn and dock authorities.
    It follows that I have not in the slightest degree any reservation to make to the regard that I hold for them and for their Association—quite the contrary. I would expect the authorities themselves to be somewhat embarrassed by being given the degree of freedom relative to charges which the Bill as at present worded offers them.
    Our Amendment would require the charge to be reasonable; that is the only difference that we offer in the drafting of the Bill. It would have the effect, however, that apart from the power of the Minister and of the National Ports Council, if a harbour or dock authority imposed an unreasonable charge it would be open to anybody affected thereby to take steps upon the matter and to make representations that the charge was unreasonable. I conceive that it would be open for there to be initiated proceedings for an injunction to restrain an authority from imposing a charge for a service if that charge was unreasonable.
    This seems to us to be a businesslike and sensible change to make. It still leaves the authorities with extensive freedom of action and great responsibility for charging, and it still leaves a substantial change in the law by virtue of the extent to which public and private enactments are repealed by the Bill. The Amendment would impose upon the authorities just that element of restraint which is desirable and would give the public the opportunity in appropriate cases to take action to prevent unreasonable charges from being imposed. It would do those things and have those effects in a fashion much more direct and, for capital purposes, more readily available than the methods propounded in Clauses 27 and 28.
    Mr. David James: I agree with the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine), but, as he is more honourable and certainly more learned than I, I am surprised that there appears to be a certain internal contradiction in his Amendment, because the charges would have to be "reasonable as they see fit", and for many years hon. and right hon. Members opposite have been trying to make us believe that what they saw fit was reasonable, but they have not succeeded in convincing the general public of that. Our suggested wording "may be reasonable" is more appropriate. However, apart from that leg-pull, our case hangs purely on a consideration of the Rochdale Report which, speaking of charges and not dues, said that all other charges should be reasonable and users dissatisfied with these charges should continue to have recourse to the courts. That is the nub of the case.
    Dr. Horace King: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) has moved the Amendment powerfully and reasonably, and I hope that he will not mind if I express some uneasiness about it. The uneasiness arises from the kind of action which he suggests might be taken if in the view of somebody the charges are not reasonable.
    So far, the docks and harbours authorities can fix charges and the National Ports Council comes in if anyone is troubled about them. As a last resort, there is an appeal to the Minister. As a layman, it seems to me that if we add the word "reasonable", which some client can take to court seeking an injunction, we shall bring in all the paraphernalia of the law and add a fourth price fixer. We shall then have first, the authority; secondly, the Ports Council; thirdly, the Minister, and fourthly, one of Her Majesty's judges.
    Much as I respect Her Majesty's judges, I am not sure that they are competent to pronounce on the complicated question of whether a charge in a docks is reasonable. It is only for that reason that I have some anxiety about the Amendment. I shall be interested to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say.
    7.15 p.m.
    Mr. Michael Coulson: I support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton. Kemptown (Mr. David James). I was not a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill, but I have read most of the OFFICIAL REPORT of its proceedings. I have noticed that this matter was raised in the Standing Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) and that my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary answered him by saying that the word "reasonable" in the Transport Act, 1962, gave no protection at all to users of port facilities. After saying that, my hon. and gallant Friend changed his mind and said that what he really meant—and this is a rather subtle distinction—was that there was just as much protection under the Bill as under the 1962 Act.
    My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary went on to suggest that a user who thought that increased charges were unreasonable still had some sort of legal remedy in that he could refuse to pay and rest his defence in any subsequent legal proceedings on the ground that the charges were unreasonable. This seems an exceedingly doubtful proposition, and I should like to know whether my hon. and gallant Friend still supports it.
    Docks charges are a serious matter for the users, and it might not be out of order if I draw an analogy with what has happened over dock haulage charges in the Port of Hull. When the 1962 Act was being considered, the Hull Timber Trade Association wrote to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport asking about the reasonableness of these charges and asking him to insert the word "reasonable" in the provision dealing with haulage charges. My right hon. Friend replied that there was no necessity to insert the word because he was certain that the Railways Board, which was responsible for initiating these charges, certainly in Hull, would not abuse its power by unreasonable treatment of individual traffic.
    However, exactly the opposite has happened, because in Hull all dock haulage is controlled by the Railways Board in conjunction with the British
    1066
    Transport Docks Board and all transport is tied to the railways, with no alternative form of transport of timber possible. Yet in recent months the Railways Board has substantially raised its charges for dock transport haulage; in some cases they will eventually be as much as seven times higher than at present. Despite strong representations from the timber trade, the Minister has found himself unable to direct the Railways Board to consider whether the charges are reasonable.
    In other words, as drafted the Bill provides a position exactly the same as that under the 1962 Act, and that is regrettable. One is forced to the conclusion that Clauses 22 and 23 as they now stand afford no protection to traders in ports. Clause 27, which deals with port dues, that is to say, dues for passengers and cargoes, what are frequently called statutory dues, gives a right of objection to the National Ports Council. In effect, this means that there will be even greater divergence between statutory dues on the one hand and what are frequently called miscellaneous charges, docks services and so on, on the other hand.
    The difference can be very important in a port like Hull, which is a nationalised port under the British Transport Docks Board, where there is virtually a monopoly of many services. Although my hon. and gallant Friend may say that if a trader does not like the charges, he can employ a private contractor or other private facilities, that does not apply in a nationalised port like Hull where the Railways Board has a virtual monopoly of work on the docks and where in some cases it is contrary to statutory provisions for a private contractor to perform form work on the docks, even though he might wish to do so, in competition with the Railways Board. It is for those reasons that I support my hon. Friend's Amendment.
    Commander Harry Pursey: I had not intended to take part in the discussion on these Amendments. But I am constrained to do so because of the attack made on the nationalised docks board in Hull by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. Coulson) and the docks which are in my constituency. The hon. Gentleman had a long time to consider

    1067
    this Bill—as did the timber trade—before the Second Reading debate. But there was not a whisper from the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Coulson: I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) is suggesting that because an hon. Member does not speak during the Second Reading debate he cannot speak on the Committee stage by way of an interjection.
    Mr. James H. Hoy: This is not the Committee stage.
    Commander Pursey: If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North had waited until I had gone a bit further with my argument he would not have dived off from the deep end after so short a contribution. The hon. Member could have served on the Committee and then we might have heard from somebody on the Government side in the Committee, instead of having a collection of "landlubbers" who sat silent except when they were ventilating arguments in support of private harbours.
    Hull is the third port in the country and the largest of the nationalised docks It is one of the best organised and run——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We know of the hon. and gallant Member's constituency enthusiasm. But, in this instance, we are confined to matters relating to this group of Amendments. It would be all right to say that there is a parallel instance of the unwisdom of omitting the word "reasonable". But to applaud the glories of Hull in the circumstances is a little remote.
    Commander Pursey: I was only taking up the point which had been made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. I do not at this stage in the debate want to get at cross-purposes with the Chair.
    Regarding charges being reasonable for the timber trade—presumably I am now 100 per cent. on target—there is no question at all that every user of the Port of Hull gets reasonable consideration over the question of charges. During the lifetime of the Labour Government I was in the closest contact
    1068
    with the timber trade. I have represented the constituency of Kingston upon Hull, East for 18 years, which is a considerably longer period than the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North has represented his constituency. Members of the timber trade have never made representations to me about charges. I have every reason to assume—in the absence of approaches from the Chamber of Commerce and Shipping about reasonable charges—that the trade is satisfied and that this is simply an argument against the present set-up of the docks at Hull which hon. Members opposite would like to smash.
    I can assure the hon. Member that the timber trade would be far worse off if the docks on the Humber were to split up into separate units and compete against each other. There is no question that the timber trade is the last that should be taken up from the point of view of national charges, or of local, which is the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. I conclude with one word about the argument. It is absolute nonsense.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett): I do not think that I shall enter into the lists over the difference of opinion between the hon. Members who represent the northern and the eastern parts of Kingston upon Hull. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. Coulson) is quite right. I did make a slip when replying to this point in Committee. I explained that to hon. Members who were present in the Committee, and, had my hon. Friend written to me, I could have told him the same thing.
    There are two sets of Amendments before the House which are designed to achieve the same purpose, namely, to restore the requirement that charges made by statutory authorities for services at harbours should be required to be reasonable. This is a more complicated question than may be generally realised, and the balance of argument for and against restoring the requirement that the charges should be reasonable is more even than might appear from some of the speeches to which we have listened tonight. This was recognised by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King).

    1069
    The hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) gave a clear summary of the fair charges Clauses of the Bill. May I go on to summarise the position as it now is from a rather narrower front. In local harbour legislation, dues on vessels, passengers and goods are invariably levied at specified rates. In contrast, charges for services and facilities, such as the use of cranes, warehousing, the supply of water, and so on, are sometimes specified in a local Act, but more often are subject to the requirement that they should be "reasonable". There are some cases where charges for services and facilities have been left entirely at the discretion of the harbour authority. This, however, is unusual, and in a majority of cases charges not specified in a local Act are required to be reasonable.
    Under general legislation revision of specified charges may be made by my right hon. Friend. Section 6 of the Transport Charges Act, 1954, provides for this. But this power of revision does not apply to those charges left to the discretion of the authority without any other restriction than the requirement that they shall be reasonable. In the Transport Act, 1962, a similar policy was followed for charges at the British Transport Dock Board group of harbours. Despite the enormous number of charges subject to the requirement of being reasonable, we have been unable to trace any case of litigation. I concede at once that the existence of the requirement may have exercised a restraining influence on harbour authorities. Against this, we have no evidence whatsoever that excessive charging is taking place in those cases where there has been no restriction at all.
    I turn now to the effect of the present Bill. Clause 22 releases harbour authorities, and Clause 23 releases the British Transport Docks Board, from the existing statutory controls and also from the requirements that the charges should be reasonable. In the particular case of ship, passenger and goods dues provision is made for an appeal to the National Ports Council. Provision is also made in certain circumstances whereby my right hon. Friend has power to impose a new scheme revising the ship passenger and goods dues for a particular port
    1070
    as a whole. The provision for appeals and this particular power of the Minister is contained in Clauses 27–36 of the Bill, to which there are already a number of Amendments on the Notice Paper. We shall come to them later.
    I must stress that the present Amendment should refer only to charges for services and only to those services pro vided by statutory authorities. For example, if we restore the word "reasonable" this would apply to services provided by the Port of London Authority but not to services provided by, shall we say, the proprietors of Hay's Wharf. Actually, it is arguable, I think, that the Amendments as they appear on the Notice Paper would embrace dues as well as charges. But I think I am right in saying that their sponsors—do they wish that or not?
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. R. J. Mellish: We certainly wish that it should include dues as well.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I should say, in passing, as it might save time later, that we would find great difficulty in agreeing with that because it would mean that two separate bodies could be appealed to, the Council, on the one hand, and the courts, on the other. I cannot think that that would be desirable.
    Mr. David James: In the Amendments I ha ire tabled I was considering charges only and not dues.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I thought should make that point in passing, because I do not want to mislead the House in what I say later.
    I have been asked: why not continue to require that these charges should be reasonable? The case against continuing in that way is two-fold. In the first place one of the major purposes is to give harbour authorities as much freedom as possible to conduct their affairs on sound commercial lines. The second reason is that we think the courts would have difficulties in deciding whether a particular charge which had become the subject of litigation was reasonable or unreasonable. Even if they decided that it was unreasonable, because of the nature of the proceedings, that could be

    1071
    only an ad hoc decision applying to the particular charges which are the subject of litigation, and their level at the time of the litigation. No doubt the courts could make restitution, but they could provide no lasting remedy beyond that achieved by the threat of further litigation.
    In practice, we think that the requirement of reasonable charges is effective only in so far as it would provide a safeguard against charges being made which were not only unreasonable but extortionate. Extortionate charges are possible only where there is a monopoly. This is most uncommon. It is seldom that the shipowner or shipper is obliged to use a particular port. In the last resort he can trade through a different port. And it is exceptional to find that particular services at ports of any size are subject to monopoly. In the great majority of cases there is competition among a number of contractors each ready and able to provide the same service. Curiously enough, the only sizeable port of which the authority has a monopoly is the profit-making port of Manchester.
    Commander Pursey: That is a private port.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I would not agree entirely with the word "private", because I think I am right in saying that the City of Manchester holds a majority interest, but it is a profit-making port. No one so far as I am aware has complained that the charges of Manchester are excessive. If they were, customers would use the Port of Liverpool instead.
    I am bound to concede that competition between port services is seldom perfect, as the economists says. I also concede that there is force in the argument that it would be possible to introduce monopolies through the machinery of a harbour reorganisation scheme under Clause 17 of the Bill. The Government are not prepared to accept the Amendment to prevent this occurring. On the other hand, there would be many cases where a grave abuse of monopoly powers could be countered by means of the harbour revision order under Clause 13. Hon. Members may think that that would be a very cumbrous process, but
    1072
    I doubt whether it would necessarily take longer or be more expensive than litigation.
    When the matter was under consideration and the Bill was being drafted, we naturally considered whether the appeals procedure in Clause 27 could be widened to allow for appeals against charges as well as dues being made to the Council. The objection to this is that it might involve the Council in a tremendous burden of administrative work. Port users who might think twice before embarking on costly litigation might be perfectly prepared to lodge appeals through the cheap and more informal procedure of going to the Council. We have discussed this matter at length with Lord Rochdale and he and his Council are in agreement in regard to that particular point.
    We also considered the possibility of adding a Clause to the Bill which would retain for my right hon. Friend a reserve power under which he could reimpose the requirement that charges should be reasonable either at ports as a whole or at particular ports, and that he should do this if experience showed that it was desirable. We rejected this course of action because we are not satisfied that we possess at the Ministry either the knowledge or the machinery to adjudicate upon complicated commercial issues. We are therefore left with the choice of opposing this Amendment and the Amendments which go with it and leaving the harbour authorities with no restrictions whatever on their charges, or of accepting the Amendment and, as it were, restoring the status quo.
    After most careful consideration, we have decided—if I may put it this way—that it would be unreasonable not to restore the word "reasonable." To that extent we accept the Amendments in principle. The restoration of the requirement that charges should be reasonable is not quite so simple as the Amendments appear to indicate. If, however, they are withdrawn I give an undertaking that the Government will seek to move the necessary Amendments in another place to restore the requirement that charges should be reasonable where that requirement now prevails.
    Mr. Mellish: I am much obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary. Of course, we

    1073
    shall willingly co-operate with him and, in the light of his assurance, we shall withdraw our Amendment on the understanding that the matter will be dealt with in another place. There is, however, a difficulty here which we had better get on to the record. When we put down the Amendment about "reasonable we wanted it to be concerned with the whole of dues and charges. The Parliamentary Secretary has said in effect that this Clause concerns only services and facilities and in that sense I recognise the difficulties.
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman made a fair point by saying that if this applied only to harbour authorities in regard to services and facilities the famous firm of Hay's Wharf, in my constituency, would not be covered. I do not think that the analogy is fair because the services and facilities which Hay's Wharf gets come through co-operation with the P.L.A. I cannot imagine that there would be cut-throat open warfare between the two. We had in mind in the whole problem of charges that the consumer should al so have some rights. I should have thought we should have had support on that from hon. Members opposite.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: In view of the assurance given by the Parliamentary Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move in page 25, line 27, at the end to insert:
    "or under an order confirmed by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries or the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in pursuance of section 2(3)(2) of the Fishery Harbours Act 1915".
    This is not actually a drafting Amendment. It is to widen the meaning of the term "statutory provision" in Clause 22. The reason is that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has the power, which has been exercised in the past, to make certain orders in revising charges on what is called revision of rates provisions concerned with orders under Section 2(3)(2) of the Fishery Harbours Act, 1915. The little ports of Lone, Bridlington and Scarborough are examples in respect of which such orders have been made.
    1074
    This Amendment is intended to ensure that such revisionary orders are stautory provisions within Clause 22 and that charges in them are, therefore, free from litigation.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 24.—(CHARGES OF LOCAL LIGHTHOUSE AUTHORITIES.)
    Amendment made: in page 26, line 11, leave out from "or" to "being" in line 13, and insert
    "by or by virtue of any other statutory provision".—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

    Clause 25.—(AVOIDANCE OF PREFERENCE AS REGARDS CERTAIN CHARGES.)
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, in page 26, line 18, to leave out Clause 25.
    Hon. Members who were in the Standing Committee will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirk-dale (Mr. N. Pannell) challenged the wisdom of leaving this Clause in the Bill. In a short but cogent speech on the subject he drew attention to some of the difficulties to which this Clause might lead were it to be interpreted too literally by the courts.
    The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) and some of his hon. Friends sought at that time to defend the Clause. They were inclined to suggest that I had written my hon. Friend's speech. In fact, the source of the information with which my hon. Friend supported his arguments against the Clause may have been derived from one of the large harbour authorities.
    There is nothing wrong in that. I think that one of the principal reasons for the Opposition's defence of the Clause was that the Dock and Harbour Authorities' Association had not asked them to oppose it, from which they concluded, not naturally, that it enjoyed the support of all the harbour authorities.
    This is not so. Indeed, we began to receive representations from a number of large harbour authorities against Clause 25 shortly after the Bill was published. In consequence, the Government have given careful consideration to the wisdom of retaining the Clause and have come to the conclusion that to do so would be a mistake. If the Clause

    1075
    were to remain, it might well throw doubt on the power of a harbour authority to levy different dues on different vessels according to the length and nature of their voyage. At present there is no doubt about the validity of this form of discriminatory due, because dues are specified by Statute, for example, in the Schedule to a Private Act.
    When the Bill reaches the Statute Book, Clause 22 will have the effect of removing the protection to these practices which is afforded by Private Acts. If, therefore, Clause 25 were retained, the courts would doubtless be asked to see whether the phrase "in like circumstances" permitted a harbour authority to discriminate, for example, between coasting and foreign traffic. In the event of the court deciding against a harbour authority, all harbour authorities which discriminated in this way could then be involved in actions going back for six years under the terms of the Statute of Limitations.
    Furthermore, I think that the House will agree that it is in the nation's interest that ports should be allowed to promote trade by offering preferential rates to large or regular users. Some harbour authorities already do this, but it certainly could be challenged if Clause 25 remained in the Bill.
    On the other hand, port users will not be left without protection or safeguards. Anyone who feels that he is being unfairly treated has a remedy under Clause 27 and can appeal to the Council. I am sure that the House agrees that the Council can be relied upon to decide every objection on its merits and to see that justice is done between the users and the harbour authorities.
    I fully appreciate that some authorities favour the retention of the Clause, as do many shipowners. On the other hand, most of the major port authorities, including the Docks Board, the Port of London Authority and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, have authorised me to say that they would be glad to see the Clause deleted.
    To sum up, the case for deleting the Clause lies in the fact that "the avoidance of preference", as it used to be
    1076
    called, has become out-dated and is already largely a dead letter at many ports.
    Perhaps I should make it clear, in conclusion, that the Government would certainly not countenance discrimination on the grounds of flag or nationality of the owner of the cargo, and, if we think it necessary, we shall be prepared to make this clear by an addition to the Bill. We are not yet satisfied, however, that it is necessary, since any port authority which attempted to discriminate on grounds of nationality would lay itself open for compulsory revision of its structure of dues under Clause 28. This is our case for asking the House to agree to the deletion of this Clause.
    7.45 p.m.
    Mr. Mellish: Unlike the Government we are consistent in this matter. The Government first of all put the Clause in the Bill, then in Committee affirmed their intention to keep it in the Bill, and now on Report have decided to take it out.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I must ask the hon. Member to recognise that I have never affirmed our intention to keep it in the Bill. I said that we agreed to it staying there but that we should consider the matter at a later stage.
    Mr. Mellish: But the Government put it in the Bill. It is their Bill, and they started with it. There was no Government Amendment in Committee to take it out. It was still in the Bill in Committee. Now the Government have decided to take it out. Why? Because certain harbour authorities are anxious that it should be removed. The hon. and gallant Member mentioned the P.L.A. and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Authority. But the Opposition are not acting as agents for the P.L.A. and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Authority. We shall do what we think is right.
    It is known that some harbour authorities want the Clause retained. I will repeat an argument which we advanced in Committee. There is a serious danger if a National Ports Council, with Government funds available, is able to provide a great deal of money for certain harbours to be improved, because there may well be a tendency, that having been done, for other harbour

    1077
    authorities to use this power of preference to try to attract certain trade.
    I am all for competition. I do not want to refer to the argument about resale price maintenance, which we shall hear this time next week when we shall have mach fun and games. I am all for private enterprise when it is genuinely private and genuinely enterprise. I am opposed in many respects to private monopoly. I want to see fair private enterprise and fair competition, and I believe that this Clause could ensure that there was not unfair competition.
    The hon. and gallant Member said that the Clause was being withdrawn because of representations from the P.L.A. and others, but he did not give the arguments of those who wish to retain the Clause. I should like to hear them. No doubt they, too, have written to him. At any rate, I go on record as saying on behalf of the Opposition, that we shall object to the Clause being removed from the Bill and that, if necessary, we shall do so in the Division Lobby.
    Mr. David James: May I take the opportunity to thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his very generous response on Clause 22. But I must admit at once that I am not so happy with the line which he is adopting over Clause 25. There is a long statutory history to this. Section 30 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act, 1847, provided the original protection to the user, and this has been maintained in every Act since over a period of nearly over 120 years. I know that similar provisions were swept aside in the 1962 Act in respect of railways, bat the railway companies are in nothing like the same monopolistic position as are the ports. If, even in 1962, the Department thought it justifiable to maintain this safeguard against discrimination, it does not seem to me that there has been any radical change since.
    Clause 35 repeals Section 30 of the 1847 Act and therefore removes any statutory safeguard which the port user has. Clause 25 was designed to improve the Section and to bring it up to date. Its removal means that the user has no safeguard at all. There are very genuine and sincere apprehensions among port users whether they will get a fair crack of the whip if the Clause is removed. As there was no particular desire in Com-
    1078
    mittee to remove the Clause, will not my hon. and gallant Friend at least consider leaving it in the Bill to be considered through all the stages—Second Reading, Committee and Report—in another place? His present proposal is being slightly bounced on us.
    Dr. King: In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary said, may I say for the record that the relations between the Dock and Harbour Authorities' Association and the Opposition have been the relations between the Dock and Harbour Authorities' Association and the Government? The Association has made its views on a number of issues known to bath sides of the House. We on this side have picked up whichever of those issues we thought were fair and square and have supported them. When we thought that they were wrong, we have opposed them.
    I find it rather pathetic that the Parliamentary Secretary should now be praying in aid the harbour authorities. He managed to dissemble his love for them throughout I he Committee stage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said, at least some of the harbour associations had the view that Clause 25, which the Government put into the Bill—we did not put it into the Bill—was a good Clause.
    Mr. Mellish: I understand that the majority of associations wanted it retained in the Bill.
    Dr. King: The position is somewhat paradoxical. The Clause was introduced into the Bill. It was spoken against by only one member of the Standing Committee. Its retention was supported by the Opposition. The Minister himself said that the arguments were 50–50; he had a balanced opinion; he could not quite make up his mind. Now, converted by the eloquence of one single speech by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirk-dale (Mr. N. Pannell) in Committee, the Minister has absolutely changed his view. There has been nothing like it in Parliamentary history since "single-speech Hamilton". I would almost suggest that the hon. Member for Kirkdale, having secured such a signal triumph as to talk a major Clause out of a major Bill, should retire, as "single-speech Hamilton" did, for ever after for fear he spoils his triumph.

    1079
    There are two issues. I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned one. We are dealing with preferential rates. We are saying in the Clause that no dock can give unfair preference to one of its customers at the expense of another. I raised in Committee the question of foreign preference, because we are all agreed that, if there should be any sort of discrimination against foreigners, or discrimination against some foreigners in favour of other foreigners, that would be a bad thing.
    8.0 p.m.
    When we discussed this subject in Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary said that we had recently made a protest to Brazil, which had made such anti-foreign discrimination in its treatment of British ships. The Parliamentary Secretary said this:
    "If this Clause was deleted, we should then have to consider very carefully whether a later Clause would be a sufficient safeguard."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 6th February. 1964; col. 516.]
    I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to state categorically tonight whether he is satisfied that the later Clauses contain the safeguard against any suggestion of anti-foreign discrimination in the arrangements which our port and harbour authorities would make. Unless he is satisfied that there is no such danger, all members of the Standing Committee, including the hon. Member for Kirkdale and the Parliamentary Secretary, were agreed that it would be a very bad thing that we should leave any loophole in our traditional position of having no anti-foreign discrimination.
    I come to the unfair discrimination which there may be as a result of the Clause being deleted. I remind hon. Members of Clause 2 of the Resale Prices Bill, under which a supplier of goods will get into trouble—
    "if he refuses to supply…goods to the dealer except at prices, or on terms or conditions as to credit, discount or other matters, which are significantly less favourable than those available to other dealers carrying on business in similar circumstances."
    The principle of Clause 2 of the Resale Prices Bill is the principle which, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemp-town (Mr. David James) told us, has been standard practice for British docks since the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act, 1847. Why change? Why
    1080
    change it at a moment in the Government's history when in general trade they are making it an offence to make the kind of discrimination which has been forbidden in the docks and harbours industry since 1847? Now the Parliamentary Secretary proposes to delete from the Bill the Clause which carries on the position as it has been since 1847.
    If the Clause is deleted, what is made unlawful in the Resale Prices Bill will be lawful under the Bill. Moreover, Clause 3 of the Resale Prices Bill condemns loss leaders. If this Clause is deleted from the Bill, loss leaders for docks and harbour authorities will be quite all right.
    The Government are speaking with two voices. They were strong in Committee. What they did in Committee was inconsistent with what they are doing in the Resale Prices Bill. Now, because of a speech by one hon. Member, the Government are not only going against the Clause which they put into the Bill and not only coming down on the side which they did not come down in Committee, but they are running counter to their latest piece of legislation.
    I said in Committee that, if a harbour authority treats one customer more favourably than it treats another, it is being unjust to the second customer. Behind the century of tradition of competition between dock and dock there has been a tradition of fair trade. There is no reason why, as we move to this new tremendous advance that we want to see in our docks and harbours, we should introduce anything which might make shady business and unfair competition possible between our various docks and harbours.
    I am very disappointed that the Minister has decided to give way to the persuasive tongue of his hon. Friend and to remove the Clause from the Bill. I hope that the hon. Member for Kemptown will help us to keep the Clause in the Bill.
    Mr. John Silkin: I support my hon. Friends the Members for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) and Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. David James), who are trying to keep the

    1081
    Clause in the Bill. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary has become a little intoxicated by the exuberance of his party's political propaganda. He has come to the view that modernisation must be applied in everything and because, as he said in Committee, the Clause or its ancestor goes back to Victorian times he thinks that must make it wrong.
    This is not necessarily so, because the basis of the Clause was the desire to prevent that kind of cut-throat competition between port and port, between harbour and harbour, between person and person, that might cause the real modernisation of our docks and harbours not to have proper effect.
    It has inherent in it another injustice. It must inevitably support the large harbour authority against the small one, for there is built into the large harbour authority a greater facility for giving preferences to passengers and ships than is so in the case of the small harbour authority.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, very fairly, was a little worried about the effect of the phrase "in the like circumstances". He took the view that it might be something which the courts would have to decide, that there might be difficulty about their so deciding, and that in point of fact, because of the Statute of Limitations, the fact that one can go back six years in an action, all sorts of dreadful things might occur in the six years from the passing of the Bill.
    We must remember that the Clause, or its ancestor, has been in operation for 125 years. The point has never arisen before and there is no earthly reason why it should arise now. It seems that the phrase is as clear a form of words as any draftsmen could possibly make. It means exactly what it says. Where differences occur they could be considered, but if one was considering one apple against one apple the result would be perfectly clear and I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary is a little pessimistic in envisaging the most diabolical results in our ports and the most terrible results in the free and efficient running of our harbours from the effect of these words.
    It is curious to find that never once have the Government had a second look
    1082
    at what the Rochdale Committee said, because in paragraph 210(i) it explicitly stated that
    "except in the case of dues on ships, goods and passengers, port authorities and other charging agencies should be free to arrange special terms in appropriate cases."
    The exception is there because if they are allowed complete freedom the whole of the great structure which the National Ports Council will be called into existence to deal with will be in serious jeopardy, according to the Rochdale Report.
    Having looked at the matter again, I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to look at it yet again, because my hon. Friends and I feel strongly that the Clause should remain in the Bill.
    Mr. Hoy: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will at least have the courtesy to reply. In moving the deletion of the Clause the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not give the House any good reasons for its removal, but merely said that we had discussed the matter in Committee, that he had promised to look at it afresh and that, having done that—and remembering that his hon. Friend who originally moved to delete the Clause in Committee has not even taken the trouble to come here tonight—he had decided that the Clause must be deleted. There has not been a Parliamentary stage between the Committee proceedings and now, so is the hon. and gallant Gentleman saying that he is moving the deletion of the Clause simply because he h is had some private conversations with two or three private or public docks?
    The only sort of reason the hon. and gallant Gentleman gave why the Clause should be deleted was that three docks would rather it be removed. He is bound to Admit that the majority of docks approved of what he did in Committee, so why is he taking this step? When the hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke in Committee he quoted more or less the same words which my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) quoted from the Rochdale Report. In fact, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
    "The Rochdale Committee did not, however, take this view."—

    1083
    that was, that a change should be made—
    "It recommended that harbour authorities should not be free to make special arrangements and levy special charges, and that can be found in paragraph 210, sub-paragraph (i) of the Rochdale Report."
    That was one of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's arguments for retaining the Clause in Committee.
    If one reads his speech on that occasion one sees that, like a good admiral, he covered his traces, because he said:
    "…the arguments are pretty finely balanced…"
    And he went on to point out that he wanted to consider the debate with his advisers. A little earlier in his speech on that occasion the Parliamentary Secretary had said:
    "On the other hand, a provision of this kind has been included in virtually all harbour legislation until now. The standard form can be found in Section 30 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act, 1847."
    It will be seen from that—
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Will the hon. Gentleman go a little further with that quotation?
    Mr. Hoy: Yes. I was leading up to the point where, after my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) had asked,
    "And not opposed by the harbour authorities?",
    the Parliamentary Secretary replied:
    "I would not go so far as to agree with that. There have been a great many discussions between ourselves and the harbour authorities, and it would not be strictly true to say that the authorities were in full agreement with this Clause, but, at the same time, they have not had much chance with their private legislation because I do not think that they would have had much success if the Section to which I have lust referred had not been included."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 6th February, 1964; c. 515–7.]
    That is what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said and, having had his argument repeated to him, it will be interesting to see what he intends to do now. Whatever he does he must be prepared to stand by his word in Committee and retain the Clause, at least during this stage. Perhaps when he hives the Bill off to another place he may get them to delete it there. Considering the co-operation the Parliamentary Secretary received in Committee upstairs from
    1084
    hon. Members on both sides, he will, indeed, be dealing scurvily with the Committee if at this stage he deletes the Clause.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I do not think that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) was being fair to me when quoting my speech in Standing Committee on 6th February. I urged him to quote a little further, but he did not refer to my comment on that occasion to the effect that
    "A Bill which was suitable in the early years of the reign of Queen Victoria is not necessarily suitable to this day and age".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F; 6th February, 1963, c. 516.]
    I said that after referring to Section 30 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act, 1847.
    Mr. Hoy: I said that the Parliamentary Secretary had said that.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I did not hear the hon. Gentleman quote me as having said that. However, the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) implied that the 1847 legislation had prevented discrimination of all sorts. That is not entirely so, because when I gave my reasons for deleting the Clause I said that the principle of discriminatory charging was safeguarded in many of the Schedules of private legislation which governed our ports, particularly the major ones.
    Although I do not know, it may be true, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith said, that if one took a vote of all the statutory port authorities more would be in favour of retaining than deleting the Clause, but we must consider the effect on the general volume of traffic which comes in and goes out of the country. The ports in favour of its deletion and which are concerned about the idea of it remaining in the Bill account for the great majority of trade coming in and leaving the country. I could have added to the ports I mentioned which are anxious for the Clause to go. However, I do not rest my case entirely on the whims or wishes of the port authorities, no matter how great they are. I gave arguments—which, with great respect to the Opposition and to my hon. Friend, no one has answered—why we wanted the Clause to go, and why we thought that no harm would be done by letting it go.

    1085
    The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) raised an important point. He asked me whether we thought that Clause 28 was a sufficient safeguard against discrimination against foreigners. We do think so, but, frankly, we are not quite certain whether it is necessarily the most convenient safeguard. It may be desirable to add a Clause to the Bill to deal with that specific point, but we are quite satisfied that, whether or not we add a Clause, the Clause as it stands will be a sufficient safeguard against differential charges on the basis of flag.
    I am never particularly moved by arguments about consistency. I never gave any undertaking in Committee that we would keep this Clause at all; on the contrary, I stated as fairly as I could the arguments for and against retaining it, and said that between then and now we would very carefully consider whether to retain the Clause. I am sure that those who have read the proceedings of the Committee will agree that that was said.
    As to our originally putting down the Clause, I do not think it foolish to change one's mind. It is quite true, as
    the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) also indicated, that the reason the Clause went into the Bill at first was that our first instinct was to model the Bill as closely as possible on the Rochdale Report, and it was not until after the Bill was published that we realised some of the uncertainties and inconveniences that might result if the Clause remained—
    Mr. Mellish: As Lord Rochdale has been mentioned, may I ask whether his Lordship was asked what he thought of the new intentions of the Government?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Not by me—but Lord Rochdale has not made any representations to us against the removal of the Clause.
    On this question of consistency, it will be within the recollection of the House that when I gave way and agreed to reinserting the word "reasonable" no hon. Member opposite made any accusation of inconsistency.
    Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 130, Noes 147.

    Division No. 48.]

    AYES

    [8.13 p.m.

    Ainsley, William

    Evans, Albert

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)

    Ginsburg, David

    Manuel, Archie

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Gourlay, Harry

    Mapp, Charles

    Barnett, Guy

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Marsh, Richard

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Mellish, R. J.

    Beaney, Alan

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Benn, Anthony Wedgwood

    Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

    Millan, Bruce

    Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Gunter, Ray

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Benson, Sir George

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Monslow, Warier

    Blackburn, F.

    Harman, William

    Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

    Blyton, William

    Harper, Joseph

    Morris, John (Aberavon)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Moyle, Arthur

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

    Harbison, Miss Margaret

    Mulley, Frederick

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    O'Malley, B. K.

    Bradley, Tom

    Hilton, A. V.

    Oswald, Thomas

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Holman, Percy

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Houghton, Douglas

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Brown, Bt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Hoy, James H.

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Pentland, Norman

    Callaghan, James

    Hynd, H, (Accrington)

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Chapman, Donald

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Prentice, R. E.

    Cliffe, Michael

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Collick, Percy

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Probert, Arthur

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Jeger, George

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Randall, Harry

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Rankin, John

    Deer, George

    Kelley, Richard

    Redhead, E. C.

    Dodds, Norman

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Doig, Peter

    King, Dr. Horace

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Driberg, Tom

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Edelman, Maurice

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

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

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    McBride, N.

    Ross, William

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    McCann, John

    Silkin, John

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

    MacColl, James

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Warbey, William

    Slater, Mr. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Stonehouse, John

    Weitzman, David

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

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

    Whitlock, William

    Small, William

    Swingler, Stephen

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Wyatt, Woodrow

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Thornton, Ernest

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Wainwright, Edwin

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Lawson and Mr. Grey.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Peel, John

    Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Percival, Ian

    Allason, James

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Arbuthnot, Sir John

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Pitman, Sir James

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Pitt, Dame Edith

    Barlow, Sir John

    Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

    Pounder, Rafton

    Barter, John

    Hendry, Forbes

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Batsford, Brian

    Hiley, Joseph

    Quennel, Miss J. M.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter

    Biffen, John

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

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Renton, Rt. Hon. David

    Bishop, Sir Patrick

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin

    Roots, William

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Holland, Philip

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

    Hooson, H. E.

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Box, Donald

    Hornby, R. P.

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Braine, Bernard

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

    Shaw, M.

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Buck, Antony

    Hughes-Young, Michael

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

    Bullus, Wing Commander Erie

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Stainton, Keith

    Campbell, Gorton

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Stanley, Hon. Richard

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Jackson, John

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Chataway, Christopher

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Stodart, J. A.

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Jennings, J. C.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Clarke. Brig, Terence (Portsmith, W.)

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Storey, Sir Samuel

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Talbot, John E.

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Tapsell, Peter

    Costain, A. P.

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Coulson, Michael

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Temple, John M.

    Cunningham, Sir Knox

    Kimball, Marcus

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Curran, Charles

    Kirk, Peter

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Lambton, viscount

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

    Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Touche, Rt. Hon, Sir Gordon

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Lilley, F. J. P.

    Turner, Colin

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Fell, Anthony

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Vesper, Rt, Hon. Dennis

    Fisher, Nigel

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Walder, David

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Lubbock, Eric

    walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs)

    Wall, Patrick

    Gardner, Edward

    Marten, Neil

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Whitelaw, William

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Mawby, Ray

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Gower, Raymond

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Mills, Stratum

    Woollam, John

    Grosvenor, Lord Robert

    Morrison, John

    Worsley, Marcus

    Gurden, Harold

    Neave, Airey

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. MacArthur and Mr. Elliott.

    Clause 27.—(RIGHT OF OBJECTION TO SHIP, PASSENGER AND GOODS DUES.)
    Mr. David James: I beg to move, in page 27, line 28, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 18 on page 30, and to insert:
    (2) An application may be made to the Minister—

    (a) by the Council, or

    (b) by any person, or any body representative of persons, appearing to the Minister to have a substantial interest,

    for the revision of all or any of the charges to which this section applies imposed by a harbour authority at a harbour which, in the
    1088
    exercise and performance of statutory powers and duties, they are engaged in improving, maintaining and managing.
    (3) If, on any such application, the Minister is satisfied that under the circumstances then existing it is proper so to do, he may, subject to the provisions of this section and where the Council is not the applicant, subject to consultation with the Council, make an order revising in such manner as he may think fit, with effect from such date as may be specified in the order, all or any of the charges referred to in subsection (2) (above), whether or not the subject matter of the application, including any classification by reference to which the amount of any of those charges is to be determined:

    1089
    Provided that—

    (a) the Minister shall not vary any charge other than those to which the application relates except after consultation with the harbour authority, the Council and such other persons, or such bodies representative of such other persons, appearing to him to have a substantial interest as may appear to him appropriate;

    (b) where on an application under this section for an increase or a decrease in any charge the Minister has made an order, the Minister shall not entertain an application for a further increase or, as the case may be, a further decrease in that charge, or for a further revision of any other charge revised by the order, if any, so made, if that application is made before the expiration of the period specified in the order as the period during which the harbour authority, by virtue of subsection (7) (below) is required not to take in respect of a matter or thing in respect of which a charge is imposed by the order, a charge other than that so imposed.

    (4) In making any order on an application under this section, the Minister shall have regard to the financial position and future prospects of the harbour authority concerned and shall not make any revision of charges which in his opinion would be likely to result in the authority receiving an annual revenue either substantially less or substantially more than adequate to meet such expenditure on the working, maintenance and management of harbour and such other costs, charges and expenses of the harbour authority as are properly chargeable to revenue, including reasonable contributions to any reserve contingency or other fund and, where appropriate, a reasonable return upon the paid up share capital of the authority:
    Provided that where the Minister is satisfied that, in view of the financial position of the harbour authority during such period immediately preceding the application as may appear to him appropriate there are special circumstances affecting the authority, the Minister may make such revision of charges as he may consider just and reasonable in the light of those special circumstances, notwithstanding that it is in his opinion likely to result in the harbour authority receiving an annual revenue substantially less than adequate for the purpose aforesaid.
    (5) When an application is made under this section, the applicant and the harbour authority concerned shall furnish the Minister and, where the Council is not the applicant, the Council, with such information and particulars, certified in such manner as the Minister may require, and the applicant shall publish in such newspapers as the Minister may require a notice stating—

    (a) the general effect of the application: and

    (b) that within a period of forty-two days from the date of the first publication of the notice any person having a substantial interest or body representative of persons who have such an interest may object to the application by giving notice to the Minister
    1090
    accompanied by the grounds of his or their objection with a copy to the applicant and to the Council, if the Council is not the applicant.

    (6) Before making an order or an application under this section, the Minister shall, if required by he applicant, or by the Council, if the Council is not the applicant, or by any person who has objected to the applicant and has not withdrawn his objection or, where the order would vary any charge other than those to which the application relates, by any person or body wit! whom he has consulted in pursuance of paragraph (a) of the proviso to subsection (3) (above), and in any other case may if he thinks fit cause an inquiry to be held by such person as he may appoint for the purpose.
    (7) Any charges imposed by an order made shall—this section in the case of a harbour shall—

    (a) except in a case where the harbour is one specified in Schedule 9 to the Transport Act 1962, be deemed to have been imposed under section 22 of this Act;

    (b) in the said excepted case, be deemed to have been imposed under section 43 of the said Act of 1962;

    and, during such period (which shall not exceed twelve months from the date of the making of the order) as may be specified in the order, the harbour authority engaged in improving, maintaining or managing the harbour shall not demand or take thereat in respect of a matter or thing in respect of which a charge is imposed by the order, a charge other than that so imposed.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This Amendment can be discussed with Amendments 150, 90, 91, 92, 151, 155 and 154 which all deal with the same point.
    Mr. Mellish: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. You will understand that Amendments Nos. 90, 91 and 92 are Opposition Amendments. They were on the Order Paper a considerable time ago, since when these other Amendments have been put down. I recognise, of course, that they relate to an earlier part of the Bill. We do not object to all these Amendments being discussed together, but can we not claim the right, if we desire, to vote on our own Amendments which we put down some time ago?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It will not be possible to do that. Assuming that the House does not accept Amendment 152 which the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. David James) is about to move, the words beyond the point at which the hon. Member wishes to make an Amendment will have been put into the Bill. It will not be possible to do anything about it then.
    Mr. Mellish: May I make this reservation, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that in order to register our point of view and to do it in the only democratic way available to us, in the Division Lobbies, we might find ourselves supporting the Amendment moved from the benches opposite, although not supporting it in principle. I should like to give notice of that fact.
    Dr. King: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, when you called out the numbers of the Amendments I understood you to call out No. 155.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes.
    Dr. King: That Amendment seeks to delete Clause 28.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is so.
    Dr. King: I am obliged.
    Mr. James: This series of Amendments deals with the subject of dues as opposed to charges. In handling charges, which can be evaluated when dealing with pilotage, buoyage and so on, one has an overhead which has got to be spread as fairly and evenly as possible. Our objection arises from the fact that when dealing with a harbour one is dealing essentially with a monopoly.
    My complaint about this Clause is that subsection (2) only gives an aggrieved person the right of going to the Ports Council and this means that the Ports Council is both counsel and judge in its own cause. It is not a sufficiently remote body to be able to give real justice, or at least to do so in such a manner that justice can be seen to be done. People who use the ports favour the existing system which means that ultimately the Minister has the right of determining, subject naturally to the interpolation of the National Ports Council which is the new body created by this Bill.
    I should like to know why it is necessary abruptly to reverse more than 100 years of statutory practice. The existing position has been well set out by Rochdale on page 66, except that possibly the Rochdale Report did not give sufficient weight to Section 6(3) of the 1954 Act which was based on a model Clause negotiated after the war between
    1092
    the parties concerned, which produced criteria for the revision of these charges.
    Once again we are dealing with a long-established statutory position. Our complaint is that under the Bill as it now stands, there are no criteria for the revision of dues. It is objected that the old procedure was cumbrous and time-wasting, but I submit that the principal existence of Section 6(3) of the 1954 Act in itself meant that every knotty case was settled out of court, that this is a single tier procedure, that there is only one person to go to—namely the court—whereas under the Bill as now proposed there will be two stages—one to the Council and one to the Minister—and this manifestly puts the port user in an unfavourable position compared with the position which he enjoyed before.
    Therefore, while I recognise that my Amendments in themselves are probably useless because a large number of consequential Amendments would be involved, I none the less wanted to give an airing to the principle that the three provisions in this Bill are not the right way to do it and that the 1954 Act was the right way to do it.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Question is, in page 27, line 28, leave out from the beginning to the word "thereto" in page 29, line 37.
    Mr. Mellish: On a point of order. With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I think that you called the wrong Amendment. I understand the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. David James) moved Amendment No. 152. Is that right?
    Mr. David James: Yes.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is the Amendment on which I put the Question.
    Mr. Mellish: Was it? I did not understand that to be so.
    Mr. Eric Lubbock: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. On my Notice Paper under Amendment No. 152 the words are:
    "Page 27, line 28, leave out from beginning to end of line 18 on page 30…"
    Those were not the words that you called out.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There has to be a saving for a Government Amendment.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: I desire to draw to the attention of the House what we regard as the merits of the three Amendments, Nos. 90, 91 and 92, which we have put tabled. We are dealing here with the Clause which gives the right of objection to the National Ports Council in regard to ship, passenger and goods dues. As I understand, the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. David James) is concerned mainly with the position of the Minister in this matter relative to the position of the National Ports Council. We are more concerned about the position of the Council itself and what it will be at liberty to do when objections against charges are put to it.
    As I understand, the National Ports Council is under an obligation, by virtue of Clause 27, to hear representations, and I take it that, usually, the Council will cause an inquiry to be held. When it has heard the representations and considered the results of the inquiry, the Council may then do one of two things, either approve the charge against which objection has been raised or issue a direction in the manner prescribed by the Clause.
    We feel that the Bill as drafted gives the Council very little flexibility in the treatment of objections. All it can do, if it decides to meet an objection, is to give a direction with respect to "the charge" which has been the subject of the objection. This may have a very restrictive effect. We want the Council, on what we regard as rational grounds, to have more room for manoeuvre and, in effect, a wider jurisdiction in the matter than the Bill provides.
    Our object is to ensure that, when objection to a charge has been made, the Council may, if it is satisfied that, in the circumstances, it is the right thing to do, at the same time as considering the charge which is the subject of the objection consider any other charges imposed by the Authority, that is, related charges or charges of the same kind and type as the one to which objection has been made. We provide in our Amendment No. 90 that, if the Council does this, persons must be given the opportunity to make known their objections or opinions regarding any wider adjustment of charges proposed to be directed by the National Ports Council.
    1094
    Amendment No. 91 would give the Council the jurisdiction, to use that word, when it turns down an objection to set a limit to the period during which the approval which it gives to the proposed charge would take effect. All these proposals are designed to ensure that the Council has a somewhat wider jurisdiction and, in practical terms, a more useful responsibility than it has under the Bill as drafted.
    We think that in an extreme case the wording of the Bill may have an almost ludicrous effect. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will indicate whether there is al answer to this point. If there is, we will be the first to accept it. An objection may be raised against a particular item in a tariff of charges. Let us say that the tariff of charges is settled relative to the weights of freight. There might be an objection to a charge in the tariff relative to the 20 ton weight of goods or consignment of goods. The National Parts Council might, on a fair hypothesis, adjudicate on that and accept the objection and give a direction which would have the effect of reducing the price applicable to that particular weight of freight, that particular weight of consignment.
    However—and this is what I suggest is absurd—it would be ludicrous if as a consequence of that direction there was not a pro rata adjustment of all the other charges in the tariff, as there will not be unless the Bill is amended. Of course, anyone is entitled to say that the docks or harbour authority, on receiving a direction requiring, in effect, a diminution of charge on a certain weight of freight and implementing that requirement will surely, in the nature of things, inevitably make the pro rata reduction for other weights and consignments. I cannot see that there is any guarantee that it will do that.
    I do not think it far fetched to say that the context of this situation is a dock authority which probably is not content or pleased with a situation in which objection to its charges has been taken to the Council. It is not entirely an impossible or even an unlikely event that it might in certain circumstances show a reluctance to make the appropriate pro rata adjustments of the tariff which common sense and reason would dictate follow from the Council's direction.

    1095
    This seems to me to be a fairly manifest defect in the Bill. What we seek to do in our Amendment is the commonsense thing, namely, to empower the National Ports Council to consider not merely the specific charge which is the subject matter of the objection but the tariff of which it forms a part. If it comes to the conclusion that the specific charge in a pro rata tariff is unreasonable, presumably it is bound to take the same view about all the other charges in that tariff, more or less. If our Amendment were accepted, the consequence would be that the Council would have jurisdiction to consider the charge not in isolation but, in appropriate cases, with the tariff of which it forms a part and to give a direction, which would be a commonsense direction, requiring a pro rata deduction throughout the tariff.
    I have dealt particularly with the first of the three Opposition Amendments, but the Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate that the reasoning, to the extent that it has merit, as I submit it has, is applicable to all three Amendments. This, we understood, was desired by the harbours and docks authorities. I have no reason to think that it is still not their desire. This illustrates the point that I was making on an earlier Amendment, that we are attentive to their propositions and when we think there is merit in them we support them. Their wish to have the matter developed in the fashion that is contained in our Amendments may, for all I know, be less intensive than their wish to have the matter dealt with in some other way which is incorporated perhaps in some other Amendment on the Notice Paper, but they did, I understand, originally regard what we are proposing as better than the provisions in the Bill, and I think that they had in mind the considerations that I have brought forward.
    I have explained our grounds for supporting these Amendments and wishing to see them carried. We think that this is an important point. We want to see the National Ports Council operating in a businesslike and effective fashion and not subject to any artificial and irrational limitations and bonds. I would go the length of suggesting authority is obliged to post notices say-
    1096
    it is considering objections to a particular item of charge in a tariff it is not free to consider all the rest and give a direction in respect of them. I would hope that, even at this late stage in our consideration of the provisions of the Bill, the merits of these Amendments will attract the support of the Parliamentary Secretary.
    Mr. Humphrey Atkins: There are on the Notice Paper two Amendments in my name which raise slightly different points from those mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine). Their purpose is to secure that before any alteration is made in the charges in respect of ship, passengers or goods dues by a harbour authority the proposals for alteration should be published in a newspaper and an opportunity given for objection by the people upon whom the charges will be levied.
    The Bill alters the existing procedure which is laid down by the Transport Charges &c. (Miscellaneous) Provisions Act, 1954, Section 6. That is precisely the procedure that I seek to reintroduce There those upon whom the new charges are to be levied are given an opportunity of seeing what they are and objecting to them, if they wish, before the charges are made. Under the Bill as it stands, this procedure is done away with. Under Clause 26 a harbour authority is obliged to post notices saying what the new charges are to be, but the first that any user might know of the charge is when he arrives in the harbour and is confronted with them.
    It might be said that in many cases the users of harbours will be the employees of large organisations which maintain agents in the various harbours concerned, who will take care to keep an eye on the alterations. But I suggest that there may be many other small users who do not have this service and, therefore, will not know in advance what the charges are, nor will they necessarily have an opportunity of objecting to them until they have been in force for some time. However, if my Amendment were accepted, those concerned would have a much better opportunity of seeing what changes are proposed to be made and getting their own associations to make representations on their behalf.

    1097
    In support of my Amendment, I point out that Parliament has supported the principle for a very long time, for more than 100 years, because it is implicit in Section 30 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act, 1847, which provided for charges for harbours to be made by Private Acts of Parliament which gave ample opportunity for interested parties to object before the charges came into force.
    8.45 p.m.
    As I have already mentioned, this was laid down in Section 6 of the 1954 Act and it was reaffirmed in Section 51 of the Transport Act, 1962, in relation to harbours owned by nationalised transport undertakings. In what I admit is a slightly different context it was reaffirmed as recently as last year by the Water Resources Act—in Section 59 and the Seventh Schedule—which gave similar prior rights of objection to certain charges laid under that Act.
    I do not seek to restrict harbour authorities in any way in suggesting such charges as they may think fit. My Amendment seeks only to protect the rights of the user, rights which have been upheld by Parliament for over one hundred years, and which I think should be continued to be upheld. I am prepared for my hon. and gallant Friend to say that my Amendment does not exactly meet the case. If he says that, I shall, naturally, accept it. I am also prepared for him to say that it is a little late to expect an Amendment like this to be made in this House, but I urge him to consider preserving the existing procedure, which has stood the test of time, and, if necessary, to have a better Amendment made in another place.
    Dr. King: This is a wide ranging debate in which the hon. Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Atkins) has discussed an Amendment of his which contains an important detail, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) has made again the point we made in Committee, on which the Dock and Harbour Authorities' Association has changed its mind, where we have maintained our objection.
    I want to address myself to the question of leaving out Clause 28. I do not think that we need linger very long over
    1098
    the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brighton, Kemp-town (Mr. David James) has moved. Unfortunately he is not here at the moment, but he made a speech one-fifth as long as the Amendment which itself is the size of a modest-size Bill. I am so glad he has come back. I do not like to speak about an hon. Member who is not present.
    I repeat for the hon. Gentleman's sake what I war, saying, that I do not think that we need linger over his Amendment which he moved in a speech about one-fifth as long as the Amendment and which he said was an heirloom of an idea which he thought it would be impossible for the Government to accept at this stage without seriously altering the Bill. I hope that I am not being unfair to the hon. Gentleman when I say that possibly the Amendment which he had more in mind was that to delete Clause 28, an Amendment on which he is supported by all his hon. Friends who are supporting the Amendment he has moved, with the addition of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson).
    My purpose is to beg the Minister to stand by Clause 28. When Clause 25 was under discussion in Committee upstairs he took up an attitude which might be described as that of one prepared to die in the last ditch. There was no ambiguity about his position. He nailed his colours to the mast. I hope that 'here will be no inconsistency about this. The Government, the Opposition, indeed everybody in the country, are deeply concerned about how far we can let free competition be free. This is the heart-searching question about that other Measure which is causing great perturbation, not only in one political party but up and down the country: how far can we allow competition to be unchecked?
    The Dock and Harbour Authorities' Association does not want Clause 28 but it does not want this Amendment, either. It wants and has said right through that it wants free competition, leaving the problem of competition to the good sense of the harbour authorities, and, if that should be deficient at any moment, to the good sense of the National Ports Council and the harbour authorities put together.

    1099
    I think that up to a point they have a good case. All of us in this House want the ports to compete. The gas and electricity nationalised industries compete with each other. On the whole, the docks and harbour authorities will not charge prices which cut their own throats. Even if the docks are not private profit makers in the ordinary sense of the word, they want their industry to be efficient, sound and private, so they will not charge too little—I will come back to this charging too little later—and they will not charge too much.
    We supported the retention of Clause 28 in Committee and we did so despite the powerful argument of the Dock and Harbour Authorities Association, which no one has put to the House this afternoon. I intervene to take the last chance of paying a tribute to that Association for the painstaking care with which it presented arguments to both sides of the Committee on all issues, but I think that the Parliamentary Secretary's case against any interference with Clause 28 in Committee was unanswerable. He said that this was a matter of basic principle.
    I want to examine his argument again with the House. We shall be making loans to the docks and harbour authorities. We want to be sure that those loans are lent to sound companies and that some day we shall get the loans back. If we believe in no taxation without representation, we also believe in no public money going to a body without, in the last resort, public control.
    Indeed, Rochdale expresses the fear that the rates charged by the docks and harbours may be too low; not that they are profiteering, but that they are not charging enough for the services they are lending, and that a long-term policy of low rates may weaken the financial position of a harbour or a port authority and so lose the public money which has been sunk into it by the taxpayer.
    If there is any doubt about this I would commend to the House, even at this late stage, Chapters 12, 13 and 14 of Rochdale, in which he points out that we are asking the ports to review their whole financial structure. The Rochdale Committee is worried because some docks and harbours do not charge
    1100
    enough to meet their long-term financial needs. They are living on their assets. Those assets will have to be replaced at a time when those things which have to be replaced cost five, six or seven times the cost of the original assets. So we must, I think, preserve Clause 28, which gives the Minister, as a last resort, the right to step in and interfere even on prices and charges. It will not be the Ports Council that interferes; it will be the Minister, speaking for Paliament and subject to the control of Parliament.
    The picture that we have, and which we have had right through the Bill, is that on this issue the reserve power which Clause 28 seeks to preserve in the Bill is one which will hardly ever be used. I must confess that I have some sympathy with the skilled administrator of a port—a man who has given his life to it—who says that if we have Ministerial interference, it is like teaching one's grandmother to suck eggs. These people have financial probity and common sense and they will not do anything foolish. Against that, we have to weigh the very grave criticism made by Rochdale on the financial structure of our ports.
    It is a truism to say that we are facing a new age and a new chapter, and that behind the whole of the Bill is the need for a master plan and behind the master plan is the need ultimately that in the last resort control should be in the hands of the Minister. I will not read to the House the passage in the Rochdale Report which states exactly what Clause 28 is seeking to enact, what both sides said in Committee was essential to the Bill, that here in Clause 28 is a power which probably will never be used. But it is a power that we dare not take out of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will resist any attempt to tamper with Clause 28.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I can set at rest the mind of the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King). The Government have no intention, unless they are out-voted, of doing away with Clause 28.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. David James) moved the Amendment in a very moderate speech and indicated, although he did not use these actual words, that it was by nature a probing Amendment.

    1101
    My hon. Friend made one observation, however, on which I must take him up. He said that in the case of an appeal against a due, the Ports Council would be judge in its own cause. I emphatically deny that.
    As the House knows, great care has been taken to make sure that the Council does not represent the special interests from the docks. It will be within the recollection of hon. Members that the Opposition took exception to the fact that there were not specific representatives from the docks on the Council. Hon. Members opposite also pointed out that the shipowners—the users of the ports—were very well represented on the Council. It cannot, therefore, fairly be said or even suggested that the Council will be judge in its own cause. I hope and am confident that it will be entirely neutral in its approach to these matters.
    This is a lengthy Amendment. If accepted, it would have the effect of radically changing the arrangements which exist in the Bill for the fixing of harbour dues. I remind the House that when we debated this matter in Committee, the Clauses concerned with charging were broadly accepted. It is true that Opposition Members ventilated the possibility of widening the procedure under Clause 27.
    The hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) has repeated the reasons for that and in due course I hope to reply to the points that he has made. It is also true that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) wished to delete Clause 28. Nevertheless, the broad method provided in the Clauses for regulating the dues was generally acceptable in principle to the Committee.
    I turn briefly to some of the specific provisions in the Amendment. I want the House to understand why the Government are not able to accept it and the other Amendments relating to it. Together with the proposal to delete Clause 28, the Amendment is designed to substitute a totally new procedure for revising the dues in place of those embodied in Clauses 27 and 28. Under the existing statutory control of port dues, the ordinary port authorities, or, indeed, persons representing a substantial interest in a port, may apply to my
    1102
    right hon. Friend under Section 6 of the Transport Charges, &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1954, for a revision of the port dues which a port authority is authorised to levy. A similar provision in Section 51 of the Transport Act, 1962, covers the nationalised docks.
    9.0 p.m.
    The Rochdale Committee recommended that the present system of control of charges should be abandoned and that the existing control was inconsistent, incomplete, and no longer serving any useful purpose. In its place the Committee recommended that port authorities should have freedom of charging, subject to the right of objection by interested persons to the National Ports Council. The Bill as drafted gives effect to these recommendations. The Amendment, which is modelled on Section 6 of the 1954 Act, would provide that the National Ports Council, or any person with a substantial interest, could apply to my right hon. Friend for revision of all, or any, of the dues. This would be a major change, and would remove fro m the Council its sole independent executive function.
    That is not of itself a conclusive argument, especially if it could be shown that my right hon. Friend could do the job better than the National Ports Council. In modesty though, I must say that this is highly arguable. What is more important, it would prevent the Council from acquiring the detailed knowledge of charging practices which it must acquire in order to perform its major advisory rôle. The Amendment would also change the scope and nature of the appeals and objections which could be made, and would also introduce a financial formula to guide the Minister. None of these changes commends itself to Government.
    I now turn to the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Atkins), that is, the Amendment to replace subsections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6). I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for saying that its effect goes far beyond what he suggested. Harbour authorities would be required to go through a lengthy procedure before increasing any charges or proposing a new charge. They would have to give public notice of their intention,

    1103
    then wait for 28 days, and then, if there were objections, submit to an inquiry or hearing by the National Ports Council, and thereafter be bound by whatever decision the Council reached on the charges in question. This would be a fundamental change in the Bill and would tie the hands of harbour authorities and, in effect, undo the reform made by Clause 22 which the House has accepted. It would mean a reversion to the old system condemned by the Rochdale Committee. I have already given the Government's objections to that system and they apply to this as to the last Amendment.
    I turn now to the three Opposition Amendments, in page 28, line 46, in page 29, line 3, and in page 29, line 15. When they were discussed in Standing Committee, I said that they were superfically attractive, and so, at first sight, they are. However, I also undertook to look into the matter more closely before Report. This has now been done, and I must say at once that we have concluded that it is best to leave Clauses 27 and 28 in their present form. I will try to explain why this is, but, in passing, perhaps I shall say that the matter has been discussed with Lord Rochdale and also, he informs us, within the Council. He authorises me to say that the Council, which, like us, was rather attracted to these Amendments when it first saw them, has none the less reached the same conclusion as the Government.
    My reasons for not feeling able to accept these Amendments are that Clause 27 gives port users, or their representative organisations, the right of objection to the National Ports Council against, to give them their full name, ship, passenger and goods dues. As the Clause is at present drafted, the objection has to be lodged against a particular due and a decision made thereon. There is nothing to prevent the Council from having regard to other dues if it so wishes.
    These Amendments would go further and give a specific power not only to consider other dues, but also to come to a decision on them in addition to deciding on the due objected to. No doubt it is likely that cases will arise when it will be advisable for the
    1104
    National Ports Council, when dealing with an objection to a due, to consider other dues levied by the authority.
    But the effect of these Amendments, taken together, would be to allow the National Ports Council, without the agreement either of the port authority or the Minister, to introduce any changes it wished—upwards or downwards—in any dues imposed by a harbour authority, once an object had been lodged under Clause 27 against any one due charged by that authority. That is true, and I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill will admit that that is the effect of these Amendments. I hope that I have not misrepresented him.
    We feel that this is inconsistent with the intention to give harbour authorities a fair measure of freedom in fixing their dues. It would, moreover, completely cut across the provisions of Clause 28, to which the hon. Member for lichen is so much attached. It should also be borne in mind that decisions on dues by the Council have the effect of "freezing" them at a particular level for a period of up to one year. So that in making, what might be quite a sweeping change it would remove from the authority in question any power of modifying charges for 12 months.
    Dr. King: What does the Parliamentary Secretary mean when he says that the Ports Council, when considering a protest against one due, might consider a whole series of dues if it can do nothing about that? Our fear is that a protest against one due may be followed by a whole series.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Council could do nothing about it, and I will try to explain. But may I say, first, that if a revision of a due is considered desirable by the National Ports Council on any scale—this, to some extent, is the answer to the hon. Gentleman—and if it is resisted by the authority concerned, we feel that the change should be made only in accordance with the provisions of Clause 28 and subject to the safeguards written into that Clause which include approval by my right hon. Friend.

    1105
    We do not think that wholesale changes should be made, so to speak, as a by-product to deal with objections to a single due under Clause 27. If a decision by the Council on an individual objection under Clause 27 were to make consequential amendments in other dues desirable, any likelihood of a danger of excessive further objections to such other dues need not arise, if the Council and harbour authority act in a reasonable and commonsense manner. That is my answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Itchen, and also to the question specifically asked by the hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill.
    We feel that there would be consultation first with the port user if, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, there were a whole—I think the expression he used was a whole "tariff of charges". There is nothing to prevent a port user or the organisation representing him from lodging an objection to a number of dues. That would be permissible under Clause 27. What I feel is more likely—one can only speculate—is that the user who has taken the initiative in the first place, having consulted his friends, would probably say to the port authority, "We intend to lodge an objection to such and such a charge as a test case".
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: Surely the Parliamentary Secretary would agree that a compendious objection of the kind about which he speaks, and which I agree is practicable under the Bill, would be a very heavy-handed and cumbersome kind of reaction to a direction by the National Ports Council in respect of a particular charge in a tariff of which these other charges form a part.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: What I imagine would happen, and what I meant when I said that they would act in a reasonable manner, is that the users would lodge an objection against a particular due, having first made clear to the authority that they regarded this as a test case. If the authority was reasonable I think it would agree that it was a test case. They would know that if they established the case against that particular charge the others would be adjusted in proportion.
    The hon. and learned Member said he thought the Dock and Harbour
    1106
    Authorities' Association was strongly in favour of these Amendments.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: At one time.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I think "at one time" are the operative words. I think that now the Association is fairly neutral and it wants to see Clause 28 disappear.
    If I may speak for a few moments collectively about all these Amendments, I should say that we have always known that the charges Clauses are disliked by some of the big interests involved. The Dock and Harbour Authorities' Association would have preferred not to have Clause 28. The shipowners would have preferred appeals on charges to be heard by the Minister rather than by the Council. The system we have adopted in the Bill is, therefore, in the nature of a compromise between the two bodies, the port operators and the port users As is often the way, the compromise is not completely acceptable to either party.
    I would remind the House, however, of the title of the Bill. It is a Harbours Bill whose object is to improve the harbours of the country, an object which must be of enormous benefit to shipowners and I shippers alike in the first place, am in consequence of great benefit to the whole national economy. With few exceptions, the harbour authorities are public authorities. They are not profit-making and they are required by Statute to provide adequate services for their users. I ask, what motive could a public authority have in treating its users unjustly?
    There is only one credible threat to the shipowners—and shipowners inspired my hon. Friend's Amendment—and even that threat is hardly credible. Nevertheless, I concede that it is just conceivable that a harbour board might take advantage of a near-monopolistic position t) over-charge in order to accumulate reserves with which it could expand its empire. Such a policy might be more in the interests of that particular harbour board than of the country at large. But the prime purpose of this Bill is to set up a National Ports Council charged with the duty of framing a national parts plan. This is precisely the body which would check the type of empire building which might inspire

    1107
    over-charging. I therefore say that the port users should look to the council for protection against any abuse of powers by the harbour authorities.
    Leaving aside the details of the particular provisions of the Clauses concerning charges and taking a broad view of the purpose of the Bill as a whole, we find it difficult to believe that the users of our ports could derive anything but benefit from the provisions of the charges Clauses as they stand. That is why we are reluctant to accept any change in them.
    The hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill rightly pointed out that the Opposition Amendments are of a very different nature—much narrower in a way, although we think them too broad For the reasons I have given. They affect the Council and the port authorities, rather than the users. The hon. and learned Member might have added that they involve a much less sweeping change than my hon. Friend's Amendment involves. It is unfortunate that under the rules of order the Opposition cannot vote on that Amendment, although perhaps they would not vote because I have convinced them. I very much hope so.
    I hope that the Opposition will not support my hon. Friend's Amendment because, judging from the figures of the last Division, they might carry it, and I feel that if they did so they would dislike the Bill in the form in which it emerged every bit as much as the Government would dislike it.
    Mr. David James: If I may reply with the leave of the House, I make no apology to the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) for moving what was frankly a probing Amendment or for being brief. I wish more of us were brief. I was slightly disturbed when my hon. and gallant Friend said that I had moved it in a moderate speech, because I was not sure what he meant by that. But in view of his moderate reply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    9.15 p.m.
    Amendment made: In page 29, line 37, leave out "thereto" and insert "to that charge".—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

    Clause 28.—(POWER OF MINISTER TO REVISE SHIP, PASSENGER AND GOODS DUES AT HARBOURS OTHER THAN FISHERY HARBOURS OR MARINE WORKS.)
    Amendment made: In page 31, line 14, leave out "respect" and insert "reference".—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

    Clause 29.—(POWER OF MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD TO REVISE SHIP, PASSENGER AND GOODS DUES AT FISHERY HARBOURS AND OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO REVISE THEM AT MARINE WORKS.)
    Amendments made: In page 33, line 19, leave out from "Where" to "the" in line 21 and insert:
    "in the case of proposals made under this section, written representations are duly made by any such person or body as is mentioned in subsection (2)(c) above".
    In line 29, leave out "with respect to the proposals".
    In line 30, after "subsection", insert "with reference to the proposals".—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

    Clause 31.—(APPLICATION OF SECTIONS 27, 28 AND 30 TO LOCAL LIGHT DUES.)
    Amendments made: In page 38, line 36, leave out "reference to" and insert "words".
    In line 37, leave out a reference to "and insert" "the words".—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, in page 39, to leave out lines 30 to 37 and to insert:
    (m) in section 28(9) and (10), for the references to a harbour authority and to subsection (8)(i) there shall be substituted respectively references to a local lighthouse authority who are not a harbour authority and to subsection (8)(a).
    Like the previous Amendments, this is a drafting Amendment but perhaps it requires a word of explanation. It simply seeks to replace paragraphs (m) and (n) by a single paragraph (m), which, it is thought, will improve the wording of the Clause.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 33.—(SPECIAL PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO FERRIES.)
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, in page 30, line 40 at the end to insert:
    (2) The following statutory provisions shall also be excepted from the operation of section 22(1) of this Act, namely,—

    (a) a provision contained in an order under Part IV of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1923 by virtue of section 38(1)(d) of that Act with respect to contributions to be assessed under the order on several fisheries and recoverable by river boards or river authorities;

    (b) a provision contained in a document issued under section 61(a) or (h) of that Act embodying the approval of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries or the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of the duty on a licence granted under that section to fish:

    (c) a provision contained—

    (i) in a scheme made under section 58 or 61 of the Water Resources Act 1963 providing for the levying of charges in respect of licences under that Act to abstract water,

    (ii) in an agreement under section 60(1) of that Act between a river authority and any person providing for charges under such a scheme as aforesaid to be levied on him at reduced rates;

    (iii) in an instrument issued under section 60(5) of that Act embodying directions of the Minister of Housing and Local Government to a river authority requiring them to make such an agreement as aforesaid.

    (iv) in an agreement under section 62(1) of that Act between a river authority and the holder of a licence under that Act to abstract water with respect to charges payable in respect of water authorised by the licence to he abstracted;

    (v) in an instrument issued under the said section 62(1) embodying a determination by the Minister of Housing and Local Government of rates at which charges in respect of licences under that Act to abstract water shall be payable before such a scheme as aforesaid comes into operation; or

    (vi) in an agreement made under section 63 of that Act with respect to charges in respect of licences under that Act to abstract water for spray irrigation;

    (d) a provision contained, by virtue of section 79(6) of the said Act of 1963, in byelaws made tinder section 79(3) thereof authorising a river authority to make reasonable charges in respect of the registration of boats in pursuance of the byelaws;

    (e) section 80(3) of the said Act of 1963, in so far as it authorises river authorities to make reasonable charges for facilities made available under section 80(2) of that Act for use by persons resorting to an inland
    1110
    water for the purposes of a form of recreation for the time being regulated by byelaws made by that authority;

    and accordingly the references to charges in subsections (2) and (4) of the said section 22 shall be construed as not including references to any such contributions as are mentioned in paragraph (a) above, any such duty as is mentioned in paragraph (b) above or any such charges as are mentioned in paragraphs (c), (d) or (e) above.
    This is not a drafting Amendment. The Amendment secures that certain statutory provisions relating to the charging powers of river boards and river authorities shall continue in force despite the operation of Clause 22(1), under which any statutory provisions which limit the discretion of the harbour authority as to its charges cease to have effect.
    The Amendment is needed because we find that very few river boards or river authorities have genuine harbour functions in addition to river works powers and river works duties, as those expressions are defined in Clause 53. These bodies are not, therefore, affected by the exclusion in Clause 54 which provides that river boards and river authorities are not to he taken to be harbour authorities by reason only of the fact that river works powers are vested in them.
    Coming down to details, the statutory charging provisions which will continue in force under paragraphs (a) and (b) of the new subsection arise from the functions of the river boards and river authorities under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923. The charging provisions which are mentioned in the remaining paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) relate to the functions of the river authorities under the Water Resources Act, 1963.
    As the House will appreciate, the Clause will now no longer be an exemptions Clause for ferries. It has been widened, and no doubt an appropriate change in its Title will be made at a later stage.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. A. Stodart): I beg to move, in page 40, line 30, at the end to insert:
    (3) In this section "harbour" does not include a marine work.
    It might be convenient, Mr. Speaker, to take with this Amendment the Amendments:
    In page 50, line 46, leave out from "1964" to end of line 3 on page 51.
    In page 54, line 24, leave out "and a wharf" and insert:
    "a wharf, and in Scotland a ferry or boatslip being a marine work".
    In page 55, line 35, after "harbour", insert "ferry or boatslip".
    In page 55, line 36, after "harbour", insert "ferry or boatslip".
    Mr. Speaker: If the House so pleases.
    Mr. Stodart: These five Amendments are closely linked in their effect. I want to express the considerable appreciation of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland of the kindness and consideration which was shown by my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and all members of the Standing Committee by allowing themselves not to be daunted by the number of Amendments which were tabled after the proceedings in Committee started on the subject of things with which I am sure the Committee must have become very familiar—that is, marine works.
    These five Amendments are necessary to ensure that certain classes of marine works, namely, ferries and boatslips, should be treated in the Bill in the same manner as other marine works. I should explain to the House that, as those who took part in our discussions in Committee are only too well aware, these Amendments were tabled in Committee but it was decided not to move them then. My hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said at that time, with I think the characteristic honesty which impressed both sides of the Committee that he had told the Committee that marine works consisted of harbours. He told hon. Gentlemen that when he was persuading them to deal with the Amendments on marine works. When he discovered that marine works also included ferries and boatslips, he felt that he was inviting the Committee at that stage to take on something more than that to which it had previously agreed.
    At present the Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act, 1937, makes provision for harbours used mainly for fishing and transport and defines a "marine
    1112
    work" as a "harbour, pier, ferry or boatslip". Certain provisions of the Bill—those dealing with the making of orders revising harbour authorities' powers and those dealing with charges—have been applied to marine works by Amendments made in Committee, and the present provisions for dealing with charges in the 1937 Act have also been repealed. Because of the way the Bill is drafted the provisions applying to marine works do not at present apply to ferries and boat-slips and this leaves these classes of marine works out in the cold, so to speak. Unless these Amendments are made there will be no statutory provision at all for dealing with charges at ferries and boat-slips.
    It seems clear, however, that while these undertakings have for the past 27 years been treated like other marine works—and to give two examples, these ferries and boatslips include many feries which, I suspect, hon. Members may have used while in Scotland; names like Kessock and Kylesku and the ferry which runs from Lismore to Port Appin—we see no reason for continuing in respect of them the very complicated procedures of the old legislation. I hope that the House will agree that they should be brought into the provisions of this Bill.
    The Amendments are essentially drafting Amendments to ensure that the definition of "harbour" and "marine work" includes ferry and boatslip where that is appropriate. The first Amendment provides that Clause 33 should not apply to marine works. I rather blush, after the number of occasions on which hon. Members have been invited to include marine works, that I should, on my first intervention, have to ask them not to include it in the Clause. The Clause takes out of the charges provisions the ferry undertakings of all harbour authorities. As I have said, it is desired to keep marine work ferries within the charges provisions.
    The second Amendment is purely drafting, amending the definition of "marine work" for the purposes of the 1937 Act. It deletes the reference to "ferry" and "boatslip" in that definition, which will now read that a marine work under the 1937 Act is the same as marine work under the 1964 Measure. The third Amendment includes ferries

    1113
    and boatslips, which are marine works, within the definition of "harbour" while the fourth Amendment includes ferries and boat slips within the definition of "marine work". The fifth Amendment is designed to make it clear that there is no disturbance of the present arrangement by which marine works do not include any ferry or boatslip owned by a railways or docks board.
    I do not want to labour the point and I think that I can summarise the matter by saying that, as on so many occasions, Scotland is seeking to cling tenaciously to what she now has and I trust that we shall be allowed to do so by maintaining the position of ferries and boat-slips as marine works, which we have enjoyed for the last 27 years.
    Mr. Hoy: It would be unfair to allow this auspicious occasion to pass without making a few comments in reply to the Under-Secretary's remarks, particularly since he was making his first speech on the Bill. I agree that it is a little difficult, the Parliamentary Secretary having persuaded us that it was essential to put marine works in, that the Under-Secretary should now be asking us to take them out. We are back to Clause 25 again. However, I understand the reason for doing this.
    The purpose of the Amendments is to make it clear that the smaller authorities in Scotland can get what they want without having to go through the old procedure. It does not in any way remove the power of the Scottish Office or the Minister of Transport to have control in this matter, and we are grateful for that.
    I am sorry that the Under-Secretary has not been able to go all the way with me, because all this trouble could have been avoided very simply. Many of these ferries are essential forms of transport, and if he had treated them as public highways and provided them free of charge, as they should be, the Amendments might not have been required at all.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 36.—(AMENDMENTS OF ACTS CONSEQUENTIAL ON SECTIONS 22 TO 35.)
    Amendment made: in page 41, line 24, after "under", insert "the provisions of".—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

    Clause 37.—(POWER OF COUNCIL TO OBTAIN INFORMATION AND FORECASTS.)
    9.30 p.m.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, in page 41, line 43, to leave out "a harbour operation" and to insert:
    "harbour opt rations of a particular description".
    Although this Amendment, and other Amendments, are of a drafting nature, I should explain them, as they are not quite straightforward. They seek to improve the wording of Clause 37(1)(b) so as to clarify the type of information the Council may demand from people engaged in harbour operations. As the subsection is at present worded, it might be argued that a person could only be required to supply information about the operations he was engaged on at the time when he received notice in writing from the Council. The new wording would make it quite clear that the Council could demand information about other harbour operations which that person was in the habit of carrying on at other times.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 42, line 2, leave out "that operation" and insert "harbour operations of that description carried out by him at that harbour".—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

    Clause 40.—(LIMITATION OF RIGHT TO CHALLENGE HARBOUR REVISION ORDERS, ETC., IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.)
    Amendment made: In page 45, line 40, at end insert "of a parcel".—[Vice Admiral Hughes Hallett.]
    Clause 47.—(MODIFICATION OF HARBOURS, PIERS AND FERRIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1937.)
    Amendment made: In page 50, line 46, leave out from "1964" to end of line 3 on page 51.—[Mr. Stodart.]

    Clause 50.—(ORDERS AND REGULATIONS.)
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, in page 52, line 32, to leave out "8" and insert "8(1), 17(7)".
    This Amendment serves two purposes. The reference to Clause 8(1) is a drafting matter, consequential on Amendment

    1115
    No. 22 on the Notice Paper which the House accepted on 4th March. That Amendment expanded Clause 8 to provide for the making of two sorts of Orders by the Minister, and it is now necessary to specify that only the type of Order mentioned in subsection (1) of Clause 8 shall be subject to negative Resolution procedure.
    Secondly, the Amendment puts in a reference to subsection (7) of Clause 17—a new subsection to which the House also agreed on 4th March. The House will recall that that new subsection gave the Minister power to amend a reorganisation scheme so as to protect pension rights. We now propose that the exercise of the power should be subject to negative Resolution procedure. That is the effect of the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 51.—(OFFENCES BY CORPORATIONS.)
    Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 22, line 41, to leave out deemed to be".
    This drafting Amendment arises out of subsection (1), by which if a body corporate is proved to have committed an offence punishable under the Bill, and this offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of one of the officers of the company, he shall, in the original words
    "…be deemed to be guilty of that offence".
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman in Standing Committee, when I maintained that these words were rather long, was kind enough to say that if we could get the same result by leaving out certain words he might be willing to accept an Amendment of this sort. I regard it as incontrovertible that the words
    "shall be guilty of that offence"
    are slightly shorter than the words:
    "shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence".
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The Government are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having put down this this Amendment, and they are pleased to accept it.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 53.—(INTERPRETATION.)
    Mr. Stodart: I beg to move in page 53, line 37, at the end to insert:
    1116
    "'district board' has the same meaning as in the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951".
    Perhaps it might be convenient to take with this Amendment those in page 55, line 26; in page 56, line 39 and line 46; and in page 58, line 6.
    Mr. Speaker: Yes, that will be convenient.
    Mr. Stodart: These Amendments are required in order to make necessary Scottish adaptations. The first three merely insert in the interpretation Clause definitions of three terms "district board", "improvement committee" and "river purification authority"—which are used in the last of the five Amendments which we are considering.
    The Amendment to page 56, line 46 amends the definition of "river works powers" in Clause 53 so that it will include powers under certain Scottish Acts—the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act, 1958, the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 1868, and the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act, 1951 and corresponding Scottish local enactments.
    The Amendment to page 58, line 6, will bring into Clause 54 references to the bodies in Scotland which have powers to undertake works on rivers for purposes of drainage, freshwater fisheries or river purification. The effect of this is that, as in England and Wales, bodies without powers of that kind will not be regarded as harbour authorities and will thus not he caught up in the provisions of the Bill. These Amendments are strictly in line with those accepted for England and Wales. They are merely Scottish adaptations to comply with Scottish law.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 54, line 24, leave out "and a wharf" and insert:
    "a wharf, and in Scotland a ferry or boatslip being a marine work".—[Mr. Stodart.]
    In line 35, leave out "(1)" and insert "(4)".
    In page 55, line 26, at end insert:
    "improvement committee" has the meaning assigned to it by section 3(1) of the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act 1958.—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]
    In line 35, after "harbour", insert "ferry or boatslip".
    In line 36, after "harbour", insert "ferry or boatslip".—[Mr Stodart.]
    Mr. Stodart: I beg to move, in page 55, line 41, to leave out "a" and to insert "the".
    I suggest that this and the two following Amendments might, for the convenience of the House, be taken together, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Yes, if the House so pleases.
    Mr. Stodart: They make the important change of inserting the definite article for the indefinite in connection with the fishing industry.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 56, line 1, leave out "a" and insert "the".
    In line 2, leave out "industry" and insert "industries".—[Mr Stodart.]
    In line 39, at end insert:
    "river purification authority" has the meaning assigned to it by section 17 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1951".—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]
    In line 46, after "1963" insert:
    "or by an improvement order under section I of the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act 1958 or by section 13 as read with section 41 of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1868 or by the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1951 or by any local enactment relating to Scotland which confers powers corresponding to the powers conferred by an improvement order or which contains provisions corresponding to the provisions of the said Acts of 1868 and 1951".—[Mr. Stodart.]

    Clause 54.—(DRAINAGE AND RIVER AUTHORITIES NOT TO BE HARBOUR AUTHORITIES IF NOT POSSESSING EXCEPTIONAL POWERS.)
    Amendment made: In page 58, line 6, after "authority" insert:
    "a river purification authority, a district board, an improvement committee".—[Mr. Stodart.]

    Clause 58.—(SAVING FOR PRIVATE BILLS.)
    Mr. Stodart: I beg to move, in page 59, line. 16, at the end to insert:
    (2) For the purposes of obtaining the issue of a provisional order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936 containing any such provision as aforesaid, it shall be deemed, notwithstanding the passing of this Act, that the objects of that provision cannot be attained without an order confirmed by Parliament under the said Act of 1936.
    1118
    This Amendment is simply to provide for the correct Scottish application of the Clause The Clause as it stands makes clear that a harbour authority which wishes to obtain powers in relation to its harbour may promote a Private Bill to do so in spite of the fact that it might have obtained the powers it required by an Order made by the Minister under the Bill. In Scotland, the procedure is by provisional order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, instead or by Private Bill, and the effect of the Amendment is to ensure that harbour authorities in Scotland may continue, if they wish, to obtain new powers by private legislation procedure if they prefer this method rasher than by applying to the Minister of Transport or, in the case of a marine work, to the Secretary of State for art Order under the Bill.
    Mr. Hoy: This is a little more than just a draining point. It is true that the new wording brings Scotland into line with England, but I do not know for what good reason the Government found it necessary to propose the Amendment. I do not understand why people would want to adopt the old procedure now that we have sought to accommodate them in the Bill in another and easier way. But I accept from the Under-Secretary of State that there may still be people who want to introduce a little private legislation of their own. If they want to do it and spend their money in that way, the Government are making it possible. It is not a matter of great moment, but I am glad that an explanation was given.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Schedule 2.—(OBJECTS FOR WHOSE ACHIEVEMENT HARBOUR REVISION ORDER'S MAY BE MADE.)
    Amendment made: in page 62. line 23, after first "the", insert "appropriate".—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

    Schedule 3.—(PROCEDURE FOR MAKING HARBOUR REVISION AND EMPOWERMENT ORDERS.)
    Amendments made: in page 65, line 6, leave out "before doing so".
    In page 68, line 27, leave out "before doing so".—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]
    9.45 p.m.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, in page 65, line 9, to leave out from "concerned" to "as" in line 10 and insert:
    "and shall not make the order until such period for consideration of, and comment upon, the proposed modifications by the applicant and those other persons as he thinks reasonable has elapsed; nor shall he so make the order".
    Perhaps it would be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the Amendments in page 68, line 29, at end insert:
    "and shall not make the order until such period for consideration of, and comment upon, the proposed modifications by those persons as he thinks reasonable has elapsed",
    in Clause 4, page 76, line 18, leave out from "concerned" to "subject" in line 19 and insert:
    "and shall not confirm the scheme until such period for consideration of, and comment upon, the proposed modifications by they who submitted the scheme and those other persons as he thinks reasonable has elapsed; nor shall he confirm the scheme",
    and in Schedule 5, page 79, line 5, leave out from "concerned" to "as" in line 6 and insert:
    "and shall not make the order until such period for consideration of, and comment upon, the proposed modifications by the applicant and those other persons as he thinks reasonable has elapsed; nor shall he, unless all persons interested consent, so make the order".
    Although the Amendments relate to different parts of the Bill, they are all on an identical point, and they are not drafting Amendments.
    Mr. Speaker: If the House so pleases.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The purpose of the Amendments is to provide that where the Minister concerned proposes when making a harbour revision or empowerment order, or when confirming a harbour reorganisation scheme, or when making a control of movement order, to do so with substantial modifications, he shall allow a reasonable period for the people concerned to consider and comment on the proposed modifications.
    The Amendments were put down to meet an undertaking which I gave in Committee to examine the possibility of revising slightly the procedure for making orders in cases where the Minister proposes to make a major modification to proposals which had
    1120
    been advertised. They ensure that substantial modifications will not be made until all concerned have had an ample opportunity to make representations concerning them. I hope that hon. Members opposite who spoke on this subject in Committee will feel that the Amendments meet their point.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: We welcome these Amendments. We attached some importance to this point, although it is a procedural point, when we were considering the Schedule earlier. It seems to me that the Amendments meet the point admirably. I am glad that it was recognised to be of some importance.
    The question of whether a reasonable period has elapsed possibly leaves discretion a little wide and uncertain. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will indicate what is thought in this context to be a reasonable period. Subject to that perhaps minor inquiry, I wholeheartedly welcome these admirably expressed Amendments.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 68, line 27, leave out "before doing so".
    In line 29, at end insert:
    "and shall not make the order until such period for consideration of, and comment upon, the proposed modifications by those persons as he thinks reasonable has elapsed".
    In page 69, line 13, after "from" insert "shall".
    In line 14, after "words", insert "shall".
    In line 42, after "from", insert "shall".
    In line 43, after "words", insert "shall".
    In page 72, line 33, after "from", insert "shall".
    In line 34, after "words", insert "shall".
    In page 73, line 38, after "from", insert "shall".
    In line 39, after "words", insert "shall".—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

    Schedule 4.—(SUBMISSION AND CONFIRMATION OF HARBOUR REORGANISATION SCHEMES.)
    Amendments made: In page 75, line 46, leave out "as aforesaid" and insert:
    "otherwise than by the Council".
    In page 76, line 15, leave out "before doing so".
    In line 18, leave out from "concerned" to "subject" in line 19 and insert:
    "and shall not confirm the scheme until such period for consideration of, and comment upon, the proposed modifications by they who submitted the scheme and those other persons as he thinks reasonable has elapsed; nor shall he confirm the scheme".—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

    Schedule 5.—(PROCEDURE FOR MAKING CONTROL OF MOVEMENT ORDERS.)
    Amendments made: In page 78, line 8, leave out "order" and insert "application".
    In page 79, line 3, leave out "before doing so".
    In line 5, leave out from "concerned" to "as" in line 6 and insert:
    "and shall not make the order until such period for consideration of, and comment upon, the proposed modifications by the applicant and those other persons as he thinks reasonable has elapsed; nor shall he, unless all persons interested consent, so make the order".—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]

    Schedule 6.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, in page 80, line 12, column 3, at the end to insert "Section 7(1), (2) and (3)".
    The purpose of the Amendment is to repeal certain provisions of the Transport Charges &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1954, which have now become redundant. The subsections in question deal with the levying of rates on seaplanes by harbour authorities which are subject to Section 6 of the Act. After the coming into operation of the charging provisions of the Bill, no harbour authority will be subject to the provisions of that Act. Therefore, subsections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 7 are redundant and can be repealed.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, in page 80, column 3, to leave out lines 14 and 15 and to insert:
    "the definitions of 'harbour' harbour undertaking', 'excepted undertaking' and 'ship'".
    This Amendment, in the same way as the one just moved, is to repeal certain provisions which have become redundant as a result of the charging Clauses of the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]
    9.55 p.m.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time
    Permit me to start by conveying to the House the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport for the fact that he has not been here tonight. The reason, I am sorry to say, is that he has been ordered to bed by his doctor as he has a temperature. He did ask me to say to the House how sorry he was at not being able to attend the closing stages of this debate, and to convey, as well as his apology, his thanks to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have done so much to facilitate the passage of the Bill.
    It has been a long and complicated Bill, but I think that we can fairly say that it has been thoroughly and carefully debated Clause by Clause both in Standing Committee and on Report. It is also a pioneering Measure of the first importance, not only to the future of British docks and harbours but also to the future of British industry and commerce as a whole. Its object is perfectly simple, namely, to improve British pores within the framework of a national plan and to ensure that no worthwhile development shall he held up for lack of money.
    In the main, the Bill is no more than an enabling Measure. It is true that it confers great powers, subject to parliamentary safeguards, on my right hon. Friend. On the other hand, neither the National Ports Council nor any individual port authority is compelled to come to him to ask him to use those powers. The initiative is left with the Council or with the individual authorities, or, in certain cases, with any person or persons who have a substantial interest in a particular harbour. No one, however, can in future excuse inaction on the ground that he has insufficient statutory powers, or that private legislation is too costly and too slow to be worthwhile.
    Politically, the Bill, if I may say so, seems to me to represent perhaps a compromise between the traditional philosophies of the two main parties. We on this side of the House have accepted

    1123
    the need to control private enterprise to the extent necessary to ensure that it shall operate in conformity with a national plan. The Opposition, as I understand, have agreed that the operation and management of our ports shall remain with local or regional boards and be subject only to the indirect controls which are provided in this Measure. In consequence, we have reached the Third Reading of an unusually complex Bill with scarcely a single difference of opinion on normal party lines.
    Perhaps it is surprising that this should have been so because a Bill of this kind inevitably arouses doubts and criticism, often of a conflicting nature, from the important interests which it affects. That is only to be expected, and yet I regard the harmony which has prevailed between the two sides of the House as a peculiarly happy circumstance, full of promise for the future of our ports, and, therefore, for the nation's economy as a whole.
    I should like to take this opportunity of clearing up two points. In Committee, some anxiety was shown about the effect that the Bill would have on licensed pilots at our ports and fears were expressed that some of its provisions might endanger the special position of pilots as set out in the Pilotage Act, 1913. I think that there may have been some confusion or misunderstanding about the relationship between that Act and the present Bill and perhaps it may be helpful if I try to explain what the position is.
    The present position is this. A new pilotage authority may be set up, or existing authorities amalgamated, under an order made by my right hon. Friend. The procedure for making those orders is set out in Section 7(2) of the 1913 Act which makes it mandatory for licensed pilots to be represented on the pilotage authority, or the pilotage committee, if there are at least six licensed pilots in the district and if a majority ask for such representation. The position at present, therefore, is that there is a procedure for creating new pilotage authorities or amalgamating existing ones. That procedure has its own safeguards and makes mandatory provision for the representation of pilots in districts of any importance. In a sense, the 1913
    1124
    Act did for pilotage authorities what we are now trying to do for harbour authorities.
    It being Ten o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER interrupted the Business.
    Ordered,
    That the Proceedings on the Harbours Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The. provisions of Clauses 13 to 17 of the Bill do not affect that procedure. It would not be possible to do anything which affected pilotage under a harbour empowerment or revision order or under a reorganisation scheme.
    There may well be harbour reorganisation schemes which bring about unified port authorities for estuaries, embracing docks, conservancy and many other functions. In such cases, it might be desirable to include pilotage within the scope of the new authorities. However, that could not be done under a reorganisation scheme any more than a harbour revision order could change the pilotage authority. There would have to be a pilotage order under the 1913 Act in the same way as at present.
    Any such schemes will almost certainly involve districts where there are at least six licensed pilots, because normally we shall be concerned with major estuaries handling an immense tonnage of ships. I should, therefore, like to emphasise that any pilotage order which is made following a revision order or a reorganisation scheme must provide for the pilots to be represented on the new pilotage authority if they so desire. I hope I have made it clear that the special position of the pilots under the 1913 Act therefore remains unchanged and that their special position continues to be safeguarded by that Act.
    Commander Pursey: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman make this point clear? Where there are two authorities, as in the Humber—the Docks Board and the Humber Conservancy Board—the question of any alteration as regards pilots will remain the responsibility of the Humber Conservancy. But who will issue the control of movement order? Where a port has both a docks and a pilotage authority, the matter is quite simple, but

    1125
    where, as in the case of Hull, the docks are owned by the British Transport Docks Board, if that Board is to make a control of movement order will it exceed the limitation of its docks or will the Humber Conservancy Board have to make the order for the river for which it is responsible as a whole?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The hon. and gallant Member's question assumes that the general set-up in the Humber estuary remains as it is. In other words, he is not considering the case of a harbour reorganisation scheme in the first place. He imagines that we continue with the docks board administering the docks and the estuarial authority administering the estuary. My answer is that I would expect the application for a control of movement order to come from the estuary authority but to be made in close consultation and co-operation with the docks board. I expect that the body which has to be set up under Clause 18 would administer a control of movement order—
    Mr. Mellish: I have followed with interest the Minister's remarks and my hon. and gallant Friend's intervention. I did not think that the Minister had got as far as Clause 18 and I was hoping that he would say something separately about that and control of movement orders.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) asked who would apply for a control of movement order and who would be in charge of it. My reply is that I think that the order would be applied for by the estuarial authority in close consultation and collaboration, naturally, with the docks board. I have no doubt that the body which operated the control of movement order would be made up of representatives both of the estuary authority and of the docks board; and under the new Clause which the House accepted on 4th March, it would also include representatives of the pilots.
    The second comment which I want to make concerns compensation. Hon. Members will recall that in Standing Committee I undertook that the Government would introduce a Clause at a later stage to deal with compensation. On that understanding, the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge
    1126
    Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) withdrew a new Clause which the Opposition had moved with the same object in view. Our intention remains unchanged and I am sorry that the Clause was not ready to put down before the Bill came back to the Floor of the House on 4th March.
    It would not be in order for me to enlarge at this stage on the contents of the new Clause, but perhaps I may be allowed to say that I do not think that there is any material difference in principle on this matter between the two sides of the House. Delay has arisen solely because of the difficulty which we have experienced in drafting the Clause, but the House will have an opportunity to discuss when the Bill returns front another place.
    In conclusion, I should like to thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their forbearance and support. It must be rare that a major Government Measure should have received so much constructive help from the Opposition. Perhaps I may remind the House that on Second Reading I said:
    "My right hon. Friend and I will approach the Committee stage with open minds, as we said we would when the matter was debated last July, and we shall be glad of any improvements that the wisdom of Parliament can suggest."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1963: Vol. 685, c. 1481.]
    I hope that the House will agree that we have been as good as our word and that, in consequence, the Bill leaves the Commons a better Measure than it was when it was read a Second time, and I commend its Third Reading to the House.
    10.6 p.m.
    Mr. Mellish: First, may I say how sorry I am that the Minister of Transport is away, sick. I mean that I am not sorry that he is away, but I am sorry that he is sick. I hope that he recovers soon.
    I ought to say that I have been in touch with the Ministry and that I know that if the Minister had been here he would have moved the Third Reading of the Bill himself. One of the first things that he would have done would have been to pay tribute to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary, who carried the whole of the Bill throughout its Committee and Report stages. As we said at the end of the Committee proceedings, he did so

    1127
    in such a way that brought the best from the Opposition and from Government supporters.
    In Committee, Conservative Members made only about four speeches because they were so charmed by the Parliamentary Secretary and it was left to the Opposition to make the running and to try to amend the Bill. Because the Government's attitude was to co-operate in a desire to improve the Bill, our task was much easier than it normally it.
    I am glad to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has said about compensation. In the light of his previous assurances, I am sure that the new Clause to be moved in another place will be satisfactory.
    I am glad that the hon. and gallant Gentleman went out of his way to give assurances to the pilots. We got ourselves into a mix-up in Committee. The pilots' association had been very upset because it was not consulted by the Government throughout the discussions of the Bill, feeling that it had a right to such consultations. It was one of the associations which merited a certain preference. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that we also had difficulties with the Merchant Navy Officers' Association. This, too, is a very important body, for docks and harbours cannot be operated without the good will of those in charge of the Merchant Navy.
    We were bewildered to discover that the Government had not consulted the Association on some of the Clauses, for example, about the control of movements orders. We had thought that Merchant Navy officers should so obviously be consulted that there was no need to mention the fact. In fact, they were not. I must put on record that they are still uneasy and unhappy about the penalties of imprisonment which may be imposed under the provisions in the Bill. Last Friday, we discussed a Measure which implemented the Convention on Safety at Sea, 1960.
    I said at that time, and I repeat today,—to put it in the right perspective—that to implement the regulations under that Convention an enormous number of things would have to be done by the masters of ships. But the maximum penalty which may be imposed on them
    1128
    is £500. In the Bill we are dealing with what are, in comparison, the minor matters arising from entry into and exit from harbours.
    I agree that that operation is important, though not so important as the safety of life at sea, but in this Bill it is possible to impose a penalty of imprisonment. To me, that still does not add up and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will look at that point again before the Bill reaches another place. The Opposition have been fair in these matters, so I must give notice to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this point will be raised again in the discussions which will take place in another place. There we have some colleagues—not many, but enough—to put forward quite an argument; and the case will be put again.
    An important feature of the Bill is its implementation of the recommendations of the Rochdale Committee. As a result of Amendments made during the Committee stage the Bill has been greatly strengthened. A number of important things have been done which may appear to be small, but which have an enormous potential. There is the permission of research and training by the National Ports Council under Clause 2. This will provide a chance for the ordinary dock worker and who knows, one day—perhaps even in this century—we may see a dock worker become an executive as a result of training.
    The National Ports Council has what we consider the reasonable power of promoting comprehensive planning for the whole of the industry. The Rochdale Committee said something about the industry which I have wanted people to say for a long time, because I have lived with the industry all my adult life. The docks industry has had a bad name because of unofficial strikes. But when the Rochdale Committee investigated it found that the industry was one of which Britain could be proud. With about 10,000 fewer men, output has increased by about 12 per cent. and that is not a bad record for any industry. The image of the industry has been clouded, because of unofficial or official strikes, but the Report of the Rochdale Committee brought to light what sort of industry this really is, and what kind of men work in it.

    1129
    I pay my tribute to the harbour authorities, private and public, which have rendered great service to the industry generally. With the good will which the Bill engenders for them they have a great future. Harsh decisions will have to be made. Some harbours—we do not know which—will have to be closed, and others may have to be merged. I hope that will be done after full consultation. Safeguards have been written into the Bill, so none of that can be done until Parliament has had something to say. The objective of creating a National Ports Council to plan the industry as a whole is one which reflects great credit on the Government who introduced this Bill so quickly after the Report of the Rochdale Committee was published.
    We support the Third Reading of the Bill and wish it well. I hope that it may go through its remaining stages quickly. I can give an assurance that the noble Lords in another place will co-operate because they are anxious to help, so that before long—before the General Election which cannot now be much longer delayed—it may be that the Bill will become law. That will represent a tribute—a monument—to the Parliamentary Secretary who will not be with us after the General Election.
    I think that the Bill does represent a tribute to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. One Clause relating to safety was included on his initiative and by his desire. This part of the Bill has the hallmark of the Parliamentary Secretary. Let us give credit where it is due. The trouble in this House is that we spend so much time attacking each other that we have very little time to say nice things. This is a Bill of which the hon. and gallant Member can be personally proud and we give to it a Third Reading with great pleasure.
    10.16 p.m.
    Earl of Dalkeith: As one who had some uncomplimentary things to say about the Bill on Second Reading, I wish to add my congratulations to my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for all the painstaking work he has done in Committee and all the flexibility and good sense he has shown in many respects. I echo the flowery words offered by hon. Members opposite in paying a very fitting tribute to the work of my hon. and
    1130
    gallant Friend in Committee. I was sorry not to be on the Committee, but I was serving on the Scottish Standing Committee which was meeting at the same time.
    I put in a plea for the small harbours. I hope that plea will fall on the ears either of the Minister or of the National Ports Council, whichever is appropriate in the circumstances in relation to the Bill. It is a plea that they should not be forgotten or elbowed to one side in favour of the bigger ports. They have an enormous part to play. At the moment they handle one-sixth of the trade coming to our ports. Our country, geographically speaking, is well suited to the continuation of small ports, particularly bearing in mind that they have the unique advantage over ports of the Continent in being almost alongside factories.I hope that this will be borne in mind in future in the context of this Bill.
    I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend on the good sense he has shown. I hope he will keep an open ear to further improvement of the Bill in another place.
    10.17 p.m.
    Dr. King: This is a much better Bill than the one which went into Committee, thanks to the work of the Opposition, some Government hon. Members and the reasonableness of the Parliamentary Secretary. We have made numerous Amendments in the Bill. I believe the chief work we have done in Committee is to destroy much of the suspicion which was in the minds of some of those who will be affected by the Bill.
    I begin by congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary on his skill, his industry, and patience in piloting the Bill through Committee. He happened to be both master and pilot of the Bill. He did not have the disadvantage of suffering from one of his control of movement orders; so he could navigate the ship safely through Committee. My colleagues and I congratulate equally my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), who led us with consummate skill and charm. Between sittings of the Committee he consulted some of the people whom the Minister and his colleagues should have consulted before the Bill reached Committee. He

    1131
    was helped by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) on the Front Bench, of whom we on the back benches have been very proud.
    The Dock and Harbour Authorities Association is very fortunate in the quality of its secretary, who briefed both sides. He has watched this Bill through its various stages as assiduously as any hon. Member has done. Now the work of the Bill really begins. The work that this enabling Bill sets out was planned and visioned by the Rochdale Report. It is worth saying on Third Reading that that began before the Report was issued. Much of the forward-planning which led to the Bill had already been done by the docks before the Rochdale Report, which was a collator as much as anything else. The new Ports Council which the Bill sets up will be a guide, philosopher and friend to docks and harbour authorities and not a dictator. There will be no interference in the detailed work.
    But, having said that, I agree with the Minister that we are giving tremendous power to the Minister and tremendous guiding power to the Ports Council. There is no question but that Britain is up against it, and that we need a revitalising of the whole national economy and a sense of purpose. Most people agree with that as long as it is addressed to the other chap and they are not asked to improve themselves. The only danger is that the docks and harbour authorities, looking back at what they have achieved since the war—quite a bit—might tend to be complacent. The purpose of the Ports Council and of the Bill is to destroy any complacency which exists.
    I must confess that my own contacts with the leaders of the various ports and harbours in the country suggest to me that there is no complacency there, that they take seriously the criticism which gave rise to the Bill and that they and the Ports Council will work in the spirit which guided the whole of the deliberations in Committee on the Bill. In Committee the Opposition were fighting certain battles of principle when we were discussing the structure of the new Ports Council.
    1132
    I emphasise that when we attacked the structure of the new Ports Council we were not attacking persons. My colleagues and I much appreciate the character of Mr. Lewis Wright, the leader of the Weavers' Union, who is a member of the new Ports Council. He brings to the new Council a lifelong experience of trade union leadership. I have met some of the other members. They are men of quality. We sought to improve the structure and their terms of reference and terms of employment, but, having said all that, we are behind the new Ports Council; it is a Ports Council of quality, and we think that it will do a great job.
    This week there will be issued the South-Eastern England Report. It is a revolutionary document which may transform the whole of the south of England and which, in particular, will have an impact on the ports of the south of England. I hope that the Ports Council will make use of the wide-ranging powers which we have given it in the Bill of examining transport and communications and the hinterland which the ports serve.
    This is a good Bill. It marks a late conversion by the Government to the virtues of planning. But it would be wrong to let the Third Reading pass without mentioning what I regard as a major blemish on the Bill. This is not a nationalisation of the docks Bill but, as I have said before, an essay in cooperation between docks and harbour authorities and eleven worthy gentlemen sitting on the Ports Council. Yet the Bill contains more penal Clauses than any of the Labour Government's nationalisation Bills. I remember how bitterly the Tory Party opposed the penal Clauses of the nationalisation Bills, and I tremble to think what they would have done in the way of penal Clauses if they had introduced a nationalisation Measure. There are 18 penal Clauses in the Bill.
    I must again protest against one of them on Third Reading. I will not repeat the argument which we had in Committee but will simply say that to use a Bill for the reorganisation of the ports and harbours of this country to bring a profession of great distinction, the masters of the ships of this country, under the threat of a criminal offence is

    1133
    an action in which I think that the Minister is entirely wrong. Here I think that the Parliamentary Secretary has been at once stubborn and ungracious.
    If I were Barbara Cartland, who wants everyone to be a Tory Christian and does not use Christianity when she is arguing with her opponents, I should use very harsh words about the Parliamentary Secretary tonight. I would only plead with him between now and the final enactment of the Bill when it is in another place to think again on this issue, because he knows that any captain who commits a crime can already be punished by criminal law. If the offence for which captains will be
    1134
    criminally liable are offences of the type Nelson committed when he put the spyglass to his wrong eye, or of the type the Parliamentary Secretary committed when, as a rear-admiral, he acted on his own initiative, as he boasted in Committee, it will be absolutely outwith the whole spirit of British tradition. I plead with the hon. and gallant Gentleman to take that away.
    It is not easy to conduct a major Bill through the House, but for a junior Minister to steer a major Bill of this character through the House is indeed a Parliamentary occasion. I end, as I began, by warmly congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary on a very signal achievement.
    10.25 p.m.
    Commander Harry Pursey: The main objects of the Bill, are, first, the establishment of a National Ports Council; secondly, the development of harbours on a national plan; and, thirdly, the control of the movement of ships in rivers and harbours, especially in low visibility. These objects were discussed on Second Reading and in detail in Standing Committee F, of which I was a Member at fourteen sittings. Consequently, there is no need to discuss them tonight on Third Reading.
    What is necessary, however, is to discuss the application of the Bill to the future development of harbours, in particular as regards the grants and loans for improvement and also the control of movement of ships. My own concern as the Member for Hull, East, which includes the main docks area, is the development of the facilities of Hull, the third British port and the largest of the twenty-six ports of the British Transport Docks Board. I will, however, confine myself briefly to the three major developments for the National Ports Council forthwith to deal with for Hull—first, new coaling appliances; secondly, a large deep water dock; and, thirdly, a port information service for the control of the movement of ships.
    New coaling appliances are an immediate short-term requirement, whether with the aid of grants or loans under the Bill, for the National Ports Council to consider for the development of Hull. Last year shipments of coal from the port increased by over 1 million tons from 350,000 tons in 1962 to nearly 1½ million tons in 1963. This spectacular increase was of real national importance as well as of local advantage, because of its contribution to the reduction in the present Tory Government's adverse balance of payments in foreign trade.
    Unfortunately, the few remaining coaling appliances at Hull—only four in Alexandra Dock—are of Victorian vintage over 80 years of age and are frequently out of action for repairs. Consequently, on average these appliances are in use for only half the working hours and thus prevent the shipment of a second million tons of coal per annum this year. Obviously capital expendi-
    1136
    ture is justified, and it is high time new coaling appliances were provided. Therefore, the National Ports Council should give early consideration to, and a favourable decision on, this project.
    10.30 p.m.
    The second requirement for Hull, which the new National Ports Council should consider, is the building of a new deep water dock below Salt End. Reference was made to this in the Rochdale Report. This would enable larger ships to be accommodated and would provide the solution to two problems; firstly, the present congestion at and the limitation of existing dock facilities and, secondly, the inability to berth and discharge or load the larger ships of today. The provision of such a dock is not only a question of local advantage but of national importance, because it would increase the total seaborne traffic, particularly to and from the Continent, for which Hull is ideally suited and the main port.
    The next immediate requirement for Hull which the National Ports Council should consider is the institution of a proper port information service. Control orders for the speedier movement of ships, especially in low visibility, presupposes a radio telephone communications system from docks to ships. These services exist at London, Liverpool and other major docks, but not at the third major port of Hull. There is no proper and complete port information service on the River Humber, although it is one of our largest estuaries, and the trouble is divided responsibility. The British Transport Docks Board and the Humber Conservancy Board are jointly responsible, the former for the docks and the latter for the pilotage and upkeep of the river.
    The main difficulty, I suppose, is that shipping interests will not pay the costs. When the establishment of an information service was considered some time ago the shipping interests argued that there was no need for such a service; yet they themselves lose large sums of money because their ships miss tides at times of bad visibility. The present position must be considered against the background of two factors. Firstly, the British Transport Docks Board has provided a v.h.f. radio telephone system at

    1137
    Immingham Docks for both commercial vessels and tankers and at Hull for tankers only; that is, at Salt End. However, there is no communications service at all for cargo vessels at the main docks, where such a service is most required.
    The second point to remember is that the Humber Conservancy Board pilot cutter "William Fenton" has v.h.f. equipment with a range of only 20 miles, but some ships have not got even this equipment and cannot, therefore, communicate with this cutter. The "Frank Atkinson", the reserve cutter, has both v.h.f. and medium frequency equipment and can, therefore, communicate with almost all ships arriving off the Humber.
    Admittedly, the "William Fenton" is shortly to be fitted with medium frequency equipment, and then, apparently, the Humber Conservancy Board will have provided the equipment for both its pilot cutters. What is now required is for the British Transport Docks Board forthwith to install the necessary equipment at the main commercial docks and train staff to use it. Two weeks ago I asked Questions in the House of the Postmaster-General and the Minister of Transport, which brought matters to a head. I have since been informed by the Hull Dock Office that an application for a licence has been made to the Postmaster-General and that, subject to his giving approval, it is hoped to obtain the equipment and train the necessary staff within about three months. That shows that three days of fog have done more than three months of discussion, and we shall shortly have a partial Humber port information service. The provision of a radar station has still to be considered.
    The present grossly unsatisfactory position can result in the following happenings. First, a pilot can board the wrong ship at sea. Secondly, he can board the right ship at sea with the wrong instructions for the master. Thirdly, a ship can "gallop" at 18 knots for over an hour up the 24 miles of the river Humber on the last period of a flood tide, and arrive off her dock only to be told by the dockmaster, "We don't want you." The ship then has to "gallop" once more at 18 knots for an hour down the 24 miles of the River Humber to sea on the first period of the ebb tide in order to avoid stranding.
    1138
    There are many cases of ships having to "gallop" up and down the River Humber. About six months ago, there was the "Indian Success." On 11th-12th November, 1963, there was the "Regina," a bulk grain carrier. 21st December last was the "Grand National" day, with four ships in the "race": "Beltana," "Eurytan," "Henrique Lage" and "Kvernaas." All four of them "galloped" up on the morning tide, "galloped" back to the river mouth, aril then "galloped" up again on the not tide. In other words, there were three "gallops" up and down the River Humber, of which two were entirely unnecessary. What fun—but what expense ! Moreover, due to congestion off the dock entrance, the "Kvernaas" grounded half an hour after high water—on a falling tide—and had to he freed by tugs. This grounding might have been a serious stranding.
    The main reasons for this unnecessary and sometimes dangerous "galloping" up and down the River Humber by big and expensive ships are the following. First, a ship that should have sailed from dock has not done so. The berth is occupied and owing to congestion, there is nowhere to berth the incoming ship. Secondly, with no port information service at the Hull main commercial docks there is no means of communication between the docks and the ships at the river entrance to enable those ships that are not wanted to be told not to enter. There cannot, therefore, be any question of carrying out these movement control orders to which reference has been made throughout our discussions. Alternatively, ships that are wanted cannot be so informed because of the impossibility of giving a movement control order. This position is quite incredible at Britain's third port; and in this advanced communication; era of 1964 it should be remedied forthwith.
    The annual report on pilotage at all ports has to be made to Parliament under the Pilotage Act, 1913. The annual report on the Humber pilots was made three weeks ago, on 25th February, by their commodore, to the Humber Conservancy Board. He said:
    "The Humber pilots, this winter, have frequently worked under considerable strain during thick weather and low visibility."
    In January after three days of dense fog, owing to inability to communicate as is

    1139
    required under a port information service, the large number of 300 ships were piloted. Pilots were
    "approaching the limit of physical endurance."
    On 23rd January, owing to there being no port information service, after two days of fog, more than 20 ships were anchored near the pilot cutter at the mouth of the river, seven large ships to seaward and three waiting off Spurn Point, which gave a total of 30 ships held up. Five ships missed the pilot cutter—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am finding it a little difficult to relate these remarks to the Third Reading of the Bill. I can understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman giving some illustrations, but he seems to be going a bit far now.
    Commander Pursey: I accept your Ruling, of course, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am on the last word of my illustrations. My remarks have been wholly tied up with the port information service. In all of my notes I have taken particular care to refer either to the National Ports Council, to the Minister or to the port information service.
    To complete the sentence, a total of 30 ships were held up, five ships missed the pilot cutter in fog, but two obtained pilots before docking.
    Among the reasons for the considerable strain on the pilots and for the failure to take ships into the docks when they should have been, with considerable loss of money, were: the pilot cutter could not communicate with ships which had only medium frequency equipment, because the cutter has only very high frequency equipment; and second, masters and pilots could not communicate with the main commercial docks because no radio telephone equipment has been installed there.
    The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. Coulson), whom I am glad to see in his place, earlier today referred to the private interest subject of timber charges at Hull docks in my constituency. I shall not pursue that point now, but it is remarkable that the hon. Member has made no advocacy of matters of public interest—namely, new coaling appliances, a new dock for Hull and a port information service—either on Second Reading or in Com-
    1140
    mittee when he could have attended the 14 sittings and made numerous speeches as I did. In other words, he has no public interest in the great city and port of Hull where he represents one of the three constituencies. He is concerned only with the private interest of the timber trade.
    This Bill gives the Minister of Transport for the first time, and the new National Ports Council, powers to plan harbour development in the national interest and speed up harbour movements of ships to the advantage of all concerned. The result should be greater efficiency, lower costs and, what is all-important, increased seaborne trade. What will now be required is that all concerned—traders, shipowners, dock authorities, dockers and Members of Parliament—should see that these powers are exercised to the full in order to ensure increased use of our present dock facilities and a quicker turn-round of our ships. Only by so doing will British traders and shipowners succeed in reducing costs and increasing our foreign trade, particularly exports, in a competitive market. Shipping is the lifeblood of an island nation such as ours, and by overseas trade we live or die.
    10.45 p.m.
    Mr. Michael Coulson: Until a few moments ago, I had not intended to speak on the Third Reading of the Bill, and I certainly do not propose to reply to the completely unjustified allegations made by the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey). I assure my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that I shall not catalogue all the matters which I think the new National Ports Council should examine in respect of the port of Hull. If I were to do so, the House would, no doubt, grow very impatient because it would probably have to sit very late. However, seeing the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger) in his place, I am tempted to say a few words on a matter about which he and I have waged a campaign for some time now, namely, the improvement of road communications between the port of Hull and the industrial West Riding.
    In my view, and, I imagine, in the view of the hon. Member for Goole, this is a subject which surpasses almost

    1141
    anything else the moment we consider the improvement of the economic efficiency and prosperity of our ports. I hope that it will have an early place in the deliberations of the National Ports Council, and I hope also that the Council will take full advantage of Clause 1 to tender to the Minister advice with respect to the provision of adequate means of access to the port of Hull by road and rail.
    10.46 p.m.
    Mr. George Jeger: I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on his pilotage of the Bill through Committee and onward to its Third Reading. What he has done with a Bill containing 59 Clauses and six Schedules is no mean feat. I am obliged to him also for the charming way in which he referred to the constructive help given to him by the Opposition and for his acknowledgment of the fact that the Bill is now a better Bill as a result of our assistance than it was when first presented to us.
    The National Ports Council will have several duties. If we turn to Clause 1, we find there the provision which, perhaps, is nearest to the hearts of hon. Members representing port constituencies. It was referred to a moment or two ago by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North (Mr. Coulson) when he drew attention to the words now added at the end of paragraph (d) of subsection (1)—
    "the prevision of adequate means of access to such harbours by road and rail".
    The addition of these words came about as a result of an Amendment which we moved in Committee.
    The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North spoke about road communications, so I shall leave that and concentrate on rail access to the ports. The National Ports Council will have authority and responsibility for planning, improving and developing our ports, and it must consider and advise the Minister upon rail access. This is something about which we need to know a little more. Did the Minister really mean it when he accepted the Amendment in Committee? He accepted it after some persuasion, and it took our forces, reinforced by hon. Members on the Government side, to induce him to do so. I should like some clarification from him as to how far he is prepared to give the National Ports Council authority to ad-
    1142
    vise on rail matters. In other words, is it to be a battle between Beeching and Rochdale? Does the left hand of the Government know what the right hand is doing? Now that the Parliamentary Secretary has accepted that the Council should have some jurisdiction over rail access to ports, does he know that some of the railway services to ports are at present being discontinued and closed?
    I take as my example the port with which I am associated, the port of Goole. Goole is the tenth port in the country, and it is the only port of the West Riding. It contributes considerably to the export trade, exporting coal up to about 2 million tons a year, machinery, iron and sleet, vehicles of all kinds, and textiles, many from the West Riding of Yorkshire, and importing grain, chemicals, fertilisers and general cargoes which are distributed mainly to the industrial areas of Yorkshire.
    At the moment the port is served by three railway lines. One is about to have its services curtailed by the Minister, since he has issued his decision withdrawing the passenger services from Goole to Leeds, Liverpool, Sheffield, York and other industrial areas. At present under consideration is the withdrawal of passenger services between Goole and Wakefield, which is the capital of the West Riding, and this would mean the cutting off of our communications by rail again with Leeds, Bradford, Liverpool, Manchester and other industrial towns. It means that Goole will be severed from the West Riding except for the one railway link to Doncaster and from there north and south, which is not a practical alternative since it would take twice as long to get anywhere by that route and cost much more.
    The business of a port is, of course, transport and shipping. But ships are not run by wholly mechanical means, and transport is not purely automatic. There is a human element involved. There have to be human beings to man them. Those human beings are not only the seamen who have to man the ships but business and professional people, the executives and the employees of the various shipping companies and of the import and export companies, who need speedy access to the ports.

    1143
    The Minister might say that they can use the roads. They are doing so to some extent. A recent count in the Goole area showed that in the last 10 years road traffic has increased by 85 per cent. I do not know how much more the roads can bear. But if the rail transport facilities are withdrawn, obviously there will be congestion at the ports or else there will be a diminution of the traffic that is conducted at the ports.
    The seamen have to report at stated times in order to board their ships. Otherwise we get delays in vessels sailing, and that means much more expense. The shipbuilding and canal services which run along the canals to the port of Goole also have their barge crews, who have to report at stated times, or they need to go home for the night and report for sailing early next morning. This can be done only by train, and if the trains are withdrawn, it means that there is much greater difficulty in getting barge crews reporting on time, in getting cargoes off on time and in getting vessels sailing on time.
    The Council, unless something is done in the meantime, will be faced, so far as the Port of Goole is concerned, with a fait accompli. Is the Parliamentary Secretary going to tell us that by virtue of Clause 1(1,d) the Council will be able to make representations for the railway services to be reopened? Will that be considered either by Dr. Beeching or by the Minister? The Parliamentary Secretary may say "What can we do at this point of time if these railway closures have already been decided upon?" There is one thing the Minister can do. From the moment the Bill becomes law he can suspend all the closures and withdrawals of railway services where they directly affect the ports.
    If the Minister does that, then we shall know that the Council is being given authority, which is vested in it by the Bill, to deal with matters of access to harbours by road and rail before services are closed, and not afterwards. Once those services are withdrawn, it will be very difficult to restore them. But if the Council is given the opportunity before the services are withdrawn to consider them, to take immediate steps to visit the ports and to review their railway
    1144
    and road services, then the Minister will be showing to the Council that he has confidence in its judgment, that he intends it to do a real job of work, and that his intentions in setting it up are honourable and just. It will give confidence that they are receiving the fullest attention of the National Ports Council—with an open mind, not as the Beeching transport committee which has already closed its mind in regard to these services.
    10.55 p.m.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: should like to refer to the very interesting speech to which we have just listened, but first I should like to associate myself with the various compliments which have been flying around the House, and I do so as a relatively new Member of it. The Standing Committee on this Bill was the first in which I played an active part, and if I felt that all Standing Committees were conducted in the way in which Standing Committee F was conducted in considering this Bill I might feel slightly less anxious at finding myself on the Government benches after the election than I am. However that may be, I should like to say how much, as a new Member, I appreciated membership of that Committee. I was indeed impressed by the performance of the Front Bench Members on both sides, and by the back benchers on both sides as well.
    I said that I wanted to refer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger). In doing so, I want to look for a moment at Clause 1 and to draw particular attention, as I have done in the past, to the whole business, which is outlined in subsection (1, a), of the possibility of new harbours, and to relate this question to the speech of my hon. Friend. The Parliamentary Secretary will, of course, be aware that I am interested in a harbour in my constituency, which, as I have explained on previous occasions, has outstanding natural advantages. However, the development of that harbour is virtually impossible unless an inland transport policy is carried out which makes that harbour an economic possibility for industry in the hinterland. There is absolutely no question about that.
    Commander Pursey: Which is it?
    Mr. Barnett: I am referring to the harbour of Portland.

    1145
    The point I am making is that with the proper development of the inland transport system it would be a very magnificent harbour for carrying merchandise from the Midlands.
    Secondly, the whole business of the future development of harbours is bound to be related not merely to the way in which industry is developed. I think we can expect, almost certainly in the 'seventies and 'eighties, a considerable change in the whole industrial pattern of the country. In view of this it is not surprising that Rochdale foreshadows very considerable change in the kind of merchandise which may pass through our ports. Indeed, he also foreshadows a very considerably increased quantity of merchandise passing through our ports.
    In view of this, I feel bound to welcome the setting up of a National Ports Council charged with the responsibility of initiating a national plan of port development. I think it is true that every port in this country which is at present in operation, like Topsy, just growed, and it would be exciting, whether at Portland or elsewhere in the country, to see a completely new port developed, and being able to take advantage of all the most modern developments in port practice and layout. It would also be exciting, to see the National Ports Council having formed a plan of port development, constantly reshaping it in the light of the needs of industry as they are seen to develop.
    I hope, therefore, that whichever Minister of Transport is in office will take seriously the recommendations made by the National Ports Council with regard to both road and rail transport and the needs of industry and the kind and quantity of merchandise that passes through our various ports.
    I wish, secondly, to refer to another point which has arisen in my constituency since Second Reading concerning the Council's general responsibility in the problem of dock labour. I refer not to the actual operation of the dock labour scheme, which is the responsibility of the National Dock Labour Board, but principally to other ports outside the scheme. I understand that thirteen ports, mostly in the southern half of the country, are outside the dock labour scheme. They are listed in the Lloyd-Williams Report, 1960, entitled "List of Ports",
    1146
    as Amble, Dover, Felixstowe, Folkestone, Keadby, Littlehampton, Mostyn, Newhaven, Norwich, Portsmouth, Ramsgate, Shoreham and Watchet.
    Admittedly, most of these are very small ports, and I believe that the only port which the Lloyd-Williams Committee recommended should be brought within the ambit of the dock labour scheme was Portsmouth. But a relatively small port in my constituency—Weymouth—operates the scheme successfully, and there would seem to me to be strong arguments for re-examining, in the light of changes which may well have taken place in the past four years, the possibility or otherwise of other ports becoming involved in the scheme.
    One would like to see a comprehensive development of the scheme and I hope that among the duties for which the National Ports Council will feel itself responsible will be the question of making the scheme comprehensive with, perhaps, a view eventually to the complete decasualisation of labour throughout the dock industry, an ideal which is shared by employers and employees.
    Portsmouth was recommended as a port which should be brought within the ambit of the scheme. This matter is deeply felt by my constituents and it is only right for me, on this occasion, to give voice to that effect. They complain of the possibility of unfair competition against other ports which do not operate the scheme. In this connection, I should like to quote from the Lloyd-Williams Report, which states, in paragraph 16:
    "If it were established that a port outside the scheme subsisted on casual labour, there would obviously be a case for bringing it into the scheme iii order to provide more regular employment for the workers."
    The Report goes on, however, to say:
    "In such a case there might be some justice in the charge that the dock employers concerned had had an unfair advantage over their competitors in scheme nods by engaging labour on inferior terms."
    That is precisely the complaint of employers at Weymouth and, I have no doubt, the complaint of employers in other ports which are within the ambit of the scheme.
    It is particularly the smaller ports, which rely on a small amount of trade passing through them, to which great damage is likely to be done by ports which are not members of the scheme

    1147
    and which, therefore, can compete on unequal terms and take a considerable percentage of a port's trade. I am in no position to quote exact figures.
    I hope very much that as part of the research which the National Ports Council undertakes, it will conduct an inquiry into this whole question to ascertain the extent to which ports which are not members of the scheme compete unfairly against ports which are members. This seems to be one of the important tasks that the Council could do which would be of direct benefit to some of the smaller ports along the South coast.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) referred to the expected report of development in the South-East, and I am told that this report includes the coast as far west as Weymouth. If this whole part of Britain is likely to undergo a period of expansion and industrial development, it seems inevitable that that will result in an increase in the merchandise going through the southern ports, and I hope that the Council will take seriously the points which I am making.
    Beyond that, I do not wish to detain the House longer, except to say that, in common with my hon. Friends, I welcome the Third Reading of the Bill. I am sure that the National Ports Council which is to be set up as a consequence of it will have a very exciting task, a task vital to the industrial health of the country and certainly of great value to the future health and prosperity of everyone working in or connected with the dock industry.
    11.6 p.m.
    Mr. Silkin: I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Barnett) and all my other hon. Friends in warmly congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary. There is an old naval proverb that the speed of a convoy is that of its slowest ship. If I can borrow from the terminology of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Commander Pursey), the speed with which the Parliamentary Secretary galloped his convoy through was both remarkable and admirable. It is true that occasionally he had to rely on a little light escort duty from
    1148
    the Opposition and that on the way perhaps one or two little ships were left behind.
    I should like to mention which of those ships I would hope would one day rejoin the convoy under this or another Government. First, we on this side of the House took the view—and we did it with considerable thought and clarity and justice—that it would be better if the National Ports Council contained a small number of permanent members. There has been a number of debates on this subject and I do not apologise for raising it again now. It seems important to us and it seems to us that it would give a stability and sense of confidence to what is a new and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South said, an exciting development of our ports It would also give the Council an authority which it might otherwise take rather longer to get than we on this side of the House would like.
    The other casualty, to put it that way, is the subject of representation of those organisations of labour which are directly concerned with the working of the docks on the Council itself. We reiterate that we would have preferred such a closer union between the two sides of industry. Once again, we think that it would have enabled the Council to have that authority and that sense of welcome which we regard as desirable.
    Nevertheless, this is a great Bill, perhaps not a revolutionary Bill, but a Bill which is a tremendous step forward, a monument in the history of our ports and harbours. Every hon. Member welcomes this new look in our harbours. The poet said:
    "The coastwise lights of England watch the ships of England go! "—
    and, we hope, the ships of every country to the new and greater and more modern harbours of the greatest maritime nation on earth.
    11.10 p.m.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: I apologise for intervening in the Third Reading debate as a non-member of what appears to have been a particularly convivial and cosy Standing Committee. I shall be as brief as I can. I rise because I want to refer particularly to the contents of Clause 17, dealing with harbour reorganisation schemes. I take

    1149
    the opportunity before the Bill finally departs from the House to plead that in the operation of this Clause the National Ports Council shall engage in adequate regional planning in regard to any schemes it has for the efficient and economical development of a group of harbours. I note with some comfort that the Clause makes provision for special Parliamentary procedure before there can be a final confirmation of any scheme of harbour reorganisation. I hope that long before the point is reached of asking approval of Parliament for a scheme of reorganisation the National Ports Council will have taken every possible step to investigate the full implications of any scheme of reorganisation of a group of harbours on the general harbour arrangements for that region.
    I raise this because I have in mind the circumstances in that part of Scotland of which I am one of the representatives. Dundee is regarded as one of the major ports on the east coast of Scotland. It has had come importance in the past in war as well as in peace. It is still a very considerable port in terms of the import of merchandise, particularly in terms of employment in that region, because it is the major port through which we import the raw jute which still provides employment for about a fifth of my constituents.
    Recently a scheme has been put forward for the reorganisation of the harbours in the Firth of Forth. I gather that this scheme has already been considered by the National Ports Council. The Parliamentary Secretary will perhaps recall that he and I have had correspondence about this. I do not want to put any obstacle in the way of any form of enterprise and development on the part of harbours in the Forth Estuary. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) has been particularly active in connection with developments in relation to the harbour in his constituency. Nor for a moment do I wish to stand in the way of the necessity for change in the pattern of harbour development on the east of Scotland or any other part of the country. I fully accept, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said in his speech on Third Reading, that inevitably in modernising the harbour
    1150
    equipment of the country there has to be change. Inevitably change is bound to cause difficulties for particular ports and harbours.
    All I ask is that in operating the Bill when it becomes law these harbour reorganisation schemes shall be considered against the full background of the kind of changes they may make in the prosperity of the area in which they are placed. In the case of developments on the Forth it would be more rational to consider the two estuaries on the Forth and the Tay as closely linked. Harbour developments of one estuary are bound to affect harbour developments in the other.
    The import of jute is a major part of the trade passing through the harbour of Dundee. I understand that over the generations a great deal of essential know-how has grown up about the handling of that jute. It is possible that harbour reorganisation schemes on the Forth, taken in isolation, will mean that it might be more economical to divert the import of raw jute through the Forth and to transport it overland to Dundee. In the end that may be the more economical thing to do in the general public interest. At this stage I do not know. All I argue is that in operating this Clause these wide implications ought to be taken fully into account.
    I hope that it will not be done at a stage when it must be dealt with by the rather inadequate processes of the special Parliamentary procedure. I hope that at the very earliest stage the National Ports Council will see this on the widest scale. I admit that in dealing with this matter it is up to the harbour authorities in Dundee to show a proper sense of modernisation and a proper spirit of enterprise. But I ask that the matter be deal with regionally and that the harbour reorganisation scheme be not treated in isolation.
    With those words, like my colleagues, I very much welcome the Bill. It seems to me that the arrangements made for the operation of the National Ports Council gives a very important opportunity to modernise the harbour equipment of this country. Subject to the cautionary words which I have uttered, I very much welcome the general provisions of the Bill.
    11.17 p.m.
    Mr. James H. Hoy: May I say a few words in what may be regarded as a benediction. The Bill has gone on for a long time, and I want to add my thanks to all hon. Members, not only on the Front Benches but on the back benches, who took part in the Committee stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North was in very good form this evening, as he had ships galloping up and down the Humber.
    Commander Pursey: Kingston upon Hull, East.
    Mr. Hoy: Whether he had the ships galloping North and South or East and West, I do not know. It seemed appropriate language on this, the first day of the flat season.
    He is quite right; if we are to have ports which will play their part in future they must be properly equipped. Without proper equipment they cannot do the job which they set out to do. If they are to hold their own we must have a quick turn-round of shipping. This is what makes ports economic. Without that they cannot hold their own with ports in other parts of the world.
    I believe that this will prove to be a very good Bill provided that it is operated with speed. Speed is one of the essentials. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) I am very sorry that we have not two or three people full time on the Council, at least at the beginning, to speed up the work which needs to be undertaken if our ports are to hold their own with ports of other countries. He was right to point out that this is one of the weaknesses of the Bill.
    What does it seek to do? The Parliamentary Secretary was right in describing it as an enabling Bill. It is only when advantage is taken of the power in it by the ports authorities and the National Ports Council that anything is likely to happen. I add one more defect—the financial provisions of the Bill. Let the House note that all we have voted is a sum of £50 million, which is not a revolving sum but must be granted in loans and then paid back into the Exchequer—and no more is heard about it unless we provide another
    1152
    Vote in the House. I make no apology for quoting once more the fact that the one port on the Continent of Europe, Europort, will cost £75 million without any equipment at all. When we measure that against the provision which we are making in the Bill, we can see that we are not going too far. I would not like the Parliamentary Secretary to have to come back with another Resolution for, say, £100 million, but, be it £50 million or £100 million, it is not a revolving sum; it has to be paid back to the Exchequer as repayment becomes due.
    We hope that the National Ports Council will be able to do its job well, but we must remember that not only must we have efficient ports but, to get the best out of our shipping, we must have efficient road and rail services giving up-to-date access to them. It is no use having first-class ports if there is bad access to them. That would undo any good that may be achieved by port improvements.
    I hope that we shall have some new ports. In this connection, may I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Barnett) for the charming way in which he makes the feelings of his constituents known to the House and also in expressing his own aspirations. If and when the National Ports Council decides to do something about the harbour at Portland—and I say this because my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has spoken of a memorial for the Parliamentary Secretary—it will be a fitting memorial for my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South.
    But, having got the National Ports Council all that it needs, then we shall have to face up to amalgamations and regional planning of ports, when some of our smaller ports may have to disappear. As has been said, small ports can play an important rôle in some parts of the country just as great as the larger ports play in the areas they serve. However, as a result of amalgamation some of them may have to go, and in this connection I would venture this word of warning. Where such a port may be standing very much on its own, the House has retained the power to make the decision about its future, and that is very important. It is important

    1153
    that such a decision should not be measured only from the economic point of view. A port may "break even", or it may never do so, but the social consequences of closing it may be very far-reaching. Instead of having a Beeching operation, with which we in Scotland are very familiar, I beg that the National Ports Council takes into account these factors.
    I knew that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) wished to raise the question of a blemish which still remains in the Bill, namely, the six months' penalty which is to be imposed on the masters of ships sailing to and from this country. I admit that the analogy which the Parliamentary Secretary used in rejecting our Amendment was a fair one, but I would have thought that there was plenty of power already available where people did not carry oat their duties promptly and efficiently without having to impose an additional penalty of six months' imprisonment. I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary did not get rid of this altogether, and we know that many of his own hon. Friends resent it as much as we do. I am only sorry that hon. Members opposite did not follow us into the Lobby to register their disapproval.
    This Bill can do a great deal for Britain. It means that our ports can be planned, and the Parliamentary Secretary is right in saying that whether or not we have the National Ports Council this job cannot be done without planning. It is planning by a central authority, the Council.
    The only regret I have is that it has taken the Government 12 years to reach the decision that planning is good for Britain. I hope that the Bill will play an important part in the economic future of the country as a whole. I wish the Council all success in the various tasks it will undertake. I hope that it will not be held up but will be able to deal speedily and efficiently with its tasks so that we may compete on equal terms with our counterparts in Europe. If we in the House of Commons have been able to do something to help our ports, I am certain that that for us is thanks enough.
    11.26 p.m.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: With the leave of the House, I will reply briefly to some of the questions which have been
    1154
    put to me. I would like, first, to thank hon. Members who have made kind and generous remarks about the small part I have played in guiding the Bill through its various stages. Because of the hour, I will confine my remarks to answering the specific questions put to me.
    The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) referred to the serious social issues involved in the closing of ports. There is no doubt that the provisions of the Bill could be made use of to reduce the size of a port. One could easily imagine circumstances in which a harbour revision order might be made with that object because, say, it could be shown thereby that the port would be in a more thriving and prosperous condition; but my advice is that the Bill could not be used as a means for closing a port altogether. I understand that it would be necessary in the case of a properly established port for a Measure to be brought before Parliament—possibly a Private Bill—before such action could be taken.
    My noble Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (The Earl of Dalkeith) and the hon. Member for Leith both mentioned the small ports. The Government entirely agree that the small ports still have an important part to play, and we hope that they will benefit from the Bill as much as the larger ports. The hon. Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger) asked how I saw the Council carrying out its duty of giving advice about rail services to ports. My interpretation of the relevant part of Clause 1 is that the Council will advise on whether it considers the rail services to be adequate or inadequate. Where necessary, no doubt my right hon. Friend will pass on that advice, and he will doubtless then proceed to discuss the matter with the Chairman of the Railways Board. I do not think I can go further on this matter tonight.
    The hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Barnett) spoke of his desire to see Portland developed as a great commercial harbour. Naturally, that depends a good deal on improved inland transport services, but before that it will depend on the Council recommending that it is necessary as part of the national plan which it will be the Council's duty to draw up. It will also depend on the one important detail—and I do not know

    1155
    whether or not this would be easy to accomplish—of getting the port from the Admiralty or greatly reducing the Admiralty's control over it.
    Mr. Barnett: I can inform the hon. Gentleman that the Admiralty is prepared to see it developed commercially and that a private company, the Bath and Portland Group, is prepared to conduct an investigation to see whether it is commercially possible. Things have already reached this stage.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I am glad to hear that. The hon. Member for Dorset, South also suggested that the Council had a special responsibility for labour outside the Dock Labour Scheme. I should have to have notice of that question before I could say whether or not I entirely agree, but I think that its responsibility for labour matters is of a somewhat indirect nature. Its main function is connected with the development of the ports and their system of management.
    The hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) returned to the question of permanent members, and representation of organised labour on the Council. I can only repeat that the Bill is so framed that it is fully permissible to make any or, indeed, all of the members of the Council permanent members should the Government of the day so desire.
    The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) urged that re-
    1156
    organisation schemes should be considered on a regional basis. It is not for me to forecast what the Council will recommend, but I must be honest and say that, as I understand it, the Council's main concern—at any rate, at first—will be with the port situated on an estuary which, of itself, may be regarded as a natural harbour; that is to say, it will be concerned with ports that, grouped together, would be suitable for management by a single board with comprehensive powers.
    The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) made some very kind remarks, for which I am most grateful. I sincerely trust that this Bill will become law before Parliament is dissolved, otherwise we shall all have wasted our time. I agree that the important thing now is to get on with implementing the Bill, and that speed is necessary. I assure the House that the Government will do their best to activate all who are concerned.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacArthur.]
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Twelve o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT
  Pension Rights (Transferability)
  Pension Rights (Transferability)
  Apprentice Training Course, Liverpool
  Apprentice Training Course, Liverpool
  Factories (Inspection)
  Factories (Inspection)
  Teaching Machines
  Teaching Machines
  Manpower Research Unit
  Manpower Research Unit
  Weekly Earnings
  Weekly Earnings
  UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT DECADE
  UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT DECADE
  YEMEN
  YEMEN
  SOUTH AFRICA (HELICOPTERS)
  SOUTH AFRICA (HELICOPTERS)
  EMBASSIES (PRESS CONFERENCES)
  EMBASSIES (PRESS CONFERENCES)
  ATOMIC WEAPONS
  ATOMIC WEAPONS
  s.s "CARDIGANSHIRE"
  s.s "CARDIGANSHIRE"
  CZECHOSLOVAKIA (VISAS)
  CZECHOSLOVAKIA (VISAS)
  DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE, GENEVA
  DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE, GENEVA
  EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON ESTABLISHMENT
  EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON ESTABLISHMENT
  DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY
  DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY
  EMBASSIES
  EMBASSIES
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Workmen's Compensation
  Workmen's Compensation
  Retirement Pensions (Supplementation)
  Retirement Pensions (Supplementation)
  National Assistance Board (Staff)
  National Assistance Board (Staff)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Pensioners (Prescription Charges)
  Pensioners (Prescription Charges)
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  World Health Research Centre
  World Health Research Centre
  Census (Pre-Test Areas)
  Census (Pre-Test Areas)
  Ophthalmic Opticians
  Ophthalmic Opticians
  Leukaemia and Anaemia
  Leukaemia and Anaemia
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Pharmaceutical Chemists
  Pharmaceutical Chemists
HOSPITALS
  Patients (Privacy)
  Patients (Privacy)
  Bethnal Green Hospital
  Bethnal Green Hospital
  New Hospital, Dorchester
  New Hospital, Dorchester
  Bridport
  Bridport
  Daily Visiting
  Daily Visiting
  Amenity and Pay Beds, Cornwall
  Amenity and Pay Beds, Cornwall
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Long-Term Agricultural Developments (Loans)
  Long-Term Agricultural Developments (Loans)
  Live Sheep (Export)
  Live Sheep (Export)
  Poisonous Substances (Advisory Committee's Report)
  Poisonous Substances (Advisory Committee's Report)
  Milking Cows
  Milking Cows
  Fluoroacetamide
  Fluoroacetamide
  Farm Improvement Scheme (Silos)
  Farm Improvement Scheme (Silos)
TRANSPORT
  Road Traffic Act, 1962 (Section 28)
  Road Traffic Act, 1962 (Section 28)
  Transport Economics (Research)
  Transport Economics (Research)
RAILWAYS
  Proposed Closure (Shoreham-Horsham Line)
  Proposed Closure (Shoreham-Horsham Line)
ROYAL NAVY
  Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea (Gun-Running)
  Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea (Gun-Running)
  Fishery Protection Squadron
  Fishery Protection Squadron
  Services (Local Employees)
  Services (Local Employees)
SOUTH ARABIAN FEDERATION
  Border and Air Space (Violations)
  Border and Air Space (Violations)
ADEN
  Merchant Ships (Bunkering)
  Merchant Ships (Bunkering)
BRITISH GUIANA
  Governor
  Governor
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Estate Duty
  Estate Duty
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Aircraft Accidents
  Aircraft Accidents
EDUCATION
  Technical Training Colleges
  Technical Training Colleges
  Further Education Staff College
  Further Education Staff College
  Technical Colleges (Staff)
  Technical Colleges (Staff)
  Teacher Training Colleges
  Teacher Training Colleges
  Young People (Day Release)
  Young People (Day Release)
  Pupil-Teacher Ratio, Hertfordshire
  Pupil-Teacher Ratio, Hertfordshire
  New Schools, Hertfordshire
  New Schools, Hertfordshire
  School Building, Hertfordshire
  School Building, Hertfordshire
  Teachers (Service in India)
  Teachers (Service in India)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) Act, 1958
  Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) Act, 1958
  Administration of Justice Act, 1956
  Administration of Justice Act, 1956
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Councillors
  Councillors
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Television and V.H.F. Sound Station, Newry
  Television and V.H.F. Sound Station, Newry
SCIENCE
  Common Cold (Research)
  Common Cold (Research)
  Medical Engineering (Research Grants)
  Medical Engineering (Research Grants)
  Fluoroacetates
  Fluoroacetates
SCOTLAND
  School Building Programme
  School Building Programme
  Census (Pre-Test Areas)
  Census (Pre-Test Areas)
  Schools, South Uist and Benbecula (Reconstruction)
  Schools, South Uist and Benbecula (Reconstruction)
  Herring Industry Board
  Herring Industry Board
  Cowlairs Co-operative Society (Letter)
  Cowlairs Co-operative Society (Letter)
INDUSTRY, TRADE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  Animals for Slaughter (Export)
  Animals for Slaughter (Export)
  British Lion
  British Lion
BRITISH ARMY
  Leave Warrants
  Leave Warrants

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

DERELICT ARMY VEHICLE ON OKEHAMPTON COMMON
2.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the derelict armoured fighting vehicle photographed on July 23, 1963, below West Mill Tor (Okehampton Common) has yet been removed.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL JELLICOE): No, my Lords. This derelict vehicle is a target for the firing ranges on Okehampton. As noble Lords will appreciate, practical targets are essential for proper training on any field range.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, would it not at least be possible to prevent it from being used as a receptacle for old tins and other rubbish, as shown in the photograph?
EARL JELLICOE: I will certainly bring my noble friend's suggestion to the attention of the military authorities. I think that most of the debris around it is, in fact, bits of the armoured fighting vehicle concerned which have been shot away.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: Let it be shot away.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: I thank the noble Earl.

DARTMOOR AMENITIES AND SERVICE TRAINING
2.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to prevent further damage to the amenities and antiquities of Dartmoor by service units, including units of the Royal Air Force and Territorials.]
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, considerable efforts are made to reconcile the interests of the National Park training which has to be carried out in this area by the Armed Forces, including units of the Strategic Reserve. The area in which live ammunition is used is kept as small as the safety of the public and the needs of training allow. When there is no firing the public can otherwise enter the area. Officers in charge of units training are given instructions to safeguard the amenities, and liaison officers are appointed to deal with complaints. So far as antiquities are concerned, I am not aware that my right honourable friend the Minister of Public Building and Works has received any complaints of any damage to any scheduled monuments as a result of this training.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: Are Her Majesty's Government not aware that a Bronze Age tumulus on Hanging-stone Hill was defaced by a concrete observation post with a flagstaff as late as 1959?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I must confess to some imperfect knowledge of this particular act, but I will certainly look into this possibility. I have, of course, seen the pamphlet produced by the Dartmoor Preservation Society, which I see the noble Earl has in his hand, and I am sure the menhir (if that is the correct description) which is to be seen portrayed on the back has not been damaged by the Armed Forces since the war but was in fact damaged by a member of the Home Guard during the war.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, my noble friend has said that the general public have access to these areas when firing is not in progress. Apart from the actual noises, what signal is there to tell them that they are free to go on these ranges?
EARL JELLICOE: I think red flags are flown when it is not safe for them to go on the ranges; but, of course, the times when range firing is being carried out are publicised in the local papers.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, would the noble Earl consider supplying the commanding officer of every military unit with a copy of this pamphlet, so that their attention may be called to the complaints which are still being made?
EARL JELLICOE: I should be glad to consider that suggestion. But I would merely remind my noble friend that there is an inter-Service Committee for Dartmoor which has recently been set up with a view to looking into, investigating and bringing to the attention of the units concerned the complaints which are made.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, while I appreciate the extreme difficulty of Her Majesty's Forces in finding suitable training grounds in the South of England, and in view of the problem of amenities, may I ask whether the Government would again consider taking our training grounds to, perhaps, the North of Scotland., where they will not interfere with such a large number of people who wish to enjoy their holidays and the general amenities?
EARL JELLICOE: I think this is a slightly wider question. But, of course, at the present time the Army Strategic Reserve and the Royal Marines, for example, are both stationed in the South of England, and so far as I know there would be no accommodation at least immediately available for them in the North of Scotland.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, does the noble Earl realise that perhaps that would not be very acceptable to Scotland?
LORD REA: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that, when the
634
authorities are banning the public from this area, they do not sing, as well as fly, the Red Flag?

INQUIRY INTO MULTILATERAL FORCE
2.41 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the committee of military experts inquiring into the necessity and feasibility of the multilateral force has yet reported, and if so, how.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, the Working Group which is considering the proposed multilateral force, in Paris, has now received a report on military aspects of the proposal from its Military Sub-Group in Washington.
LORD KENNET: Can the Government tell the House anything about when the Working Group itself might report, and to whom? Will it report to the Governments represented upon it, and when will it do so?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am afraid I could not say when it will be. Of course, it will report to NATO and the Governments taking part in the discussions.
LORD KENNET: May I just confirm this point and clarify it: the Working Group will report to the NATO Council?
LORD CARRINGTON: I am not quite sure, my Lords. I should not like to commit myself specifically. I wonder whether I might write to the noble Lord to let him know.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, can the noble Lord give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will preserve the right of veto in any of these proposals, should they be put into operation?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, that is a hypothetical question.

SAFETY BARRIERS ON MOTORWAYS
2.43 p.m.
LORD ST. JUST: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether tests on crash barriers and anti-dazzle netting on trunk roads and motorways are complete, and if so, whether Her Majesty's Government intend to install these barriers on motorways.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): No, My Lords. Experiments with a metal mesh anti-dazzle screen are being carried out on M.1 and have been for some time. The evidence so far of its effect in reducing accidents is insufficient to warrant its extension or its installation on other motorways. To test the value of crash barriers in motorway central reserves, two 9-mile lengths of double steel rail safety fence are being installed on M.1.
LORD ST. JUST: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord is aware that, as a result of Continental experience on this type of road, it is thought that possibly the best method of restraining cars that run off the road and for anti-dazzle purposes is the plantation of shrubs, in particular, I believe, certain rose trees.
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, my Lords, we were aware of that. Experiments have been going on, using hessian sacking to simulate planting, to find out what is the most effective height and density of the planting. Unfortunately, Rosa Multiflora Japonica, which is much used, is not known to have the necessary resistance to diesel fumes, salt spray and root interference with the central drains. We hope to find something in due course; but meanwhile it is not a case of "roses, roses all the way".
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, how about brambles, brambles, brambles?
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, has the noble Lord taken into
636
account American experience in this matter, where, I understand, a type of rose tree has been utilised which not only is extremely effective in providing a screen against dazzle but also does not cause anybody who unfortunately is flung into it to be filled with rose thorns?
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, my Lords; we certainly have availed ourselves of that experience. The point is that they have much more space in America; they build their roads much wider than ours; but in this country it does not seem that there is room for rose hedges sufficiently thick to provide an adequate barrier into which to run.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us when we may hope that some plantation will take place?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I cannot put any time on it. Experiment and research is going on to find a suitable shrub that has the resistant properties I have mentioned.
LORD REA: My Lords, if it is not too wide of the Question, might I ask whether consideration has been given to the compulsory use of yellow headlamp bulbs, as on the Continent, which reduces dazzle?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, we have considered that point; I have mentioned it in this House several times. Furthermore, it is too wide of the Question.

CYPRUS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that the Leader of the House will make a statement on Cyprus at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m.
PORT OF LONDON (EXTENSION OF SEAWARD LIMIT) BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
CUSTOMS ANNUITY AND BENEVOLENT FUND BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
RATING (INTERIM RELIEF) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE BILL
2.49 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Price stability of imported products
1.—(1) In the interest of maintaining in the United Kingdom a stable market for agricultural or horticultural produce of any description produced in the United Kingdom, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretaries of State respectively concerned with agriculture in Scotland and Northern Ireland, acting jointly may by order specify produce of that description or any of its related products or both as commodities in relation to which the powers conferred by subsection (2) below may be exercised; and for the purposes of this section "specified commodity" means any description of produce or related product in relation to which those powers are for the time being exercisable by virtue of such an order.
(2) In relation to any specified commodity the Ministers aforesaid may by order prescribe a minimum price level for imports into the United Kingdom; and with a view to maintaining the level so prescribed for any commodity or to allowing for the effect for that or other specified commodities of its maintenance, they may by order direct that on any specified commodity imported into the United Kingdom there shall be charged for the use of Her Majesty such levy as may be prescribed by or determined in accordance with the order.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (1), to omit "or any of its related products or both". The noble Lord said: My Lords, beg to move Amendment No. 1 which stands in my name on the Order Paper, and I hope that it will meet with the convenience of the Committee if we take with it Amendment No. 2. With these two Amendments we seek to remove from the scope of the Bill products "related to"
638
agriculture and horticultural produce. As subsection (10) of Clause 1 makes clear, "related products" has the widest possible meaning. Produce is there defined as
"anything (whether live or dead) produced in the course of agriculture":
and "related product" means—and I quote:

"(a) any product of a description which is obtained from that produce or from any related product, with or without any process of manufacture, or is obtained by the use of that produce or by that of any related product as a material, component or ingredient; and

(b) any substance or article of a like nature or use to the produce or to any related product ".

That definition is as wide as a barn door. It could include almost anything which is remotely related to agriculture or horticulture, or which could, in effect, in any conceivable way be used as a substitute for products related to agriculture. It means that the Minister of Agriculture, if this Bill is not amended, will be taking power to fix minimum import prices for an enormous range of manufactured goods. In my submission, it is useless for the Government to argue that this is merely an enabling Bill; that they intend, as the Minister has said, to apply it only to cereals and cannot put a minimum import price on any commodity unless they lay an Order before the House. That is no real safeguard. If the Government do not intend to use these enormously wide powers, equivalent to a blank cheque, to control the flow of a substantial part of our total imports, why put the powers in the Bill?
In Committee in another place the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Agriculture could give only two reasons, which I regard as singularly unconvincing, for this, and both of them refer to cereals. He said (and I think this was a fair point) that cereal products bought from abroad—and he instanced maize and sorghum—might be imported at such low prices as to wreck the market. This could be easily overcome by specifying in the Schedules a list of primary and horticultural products to which Clause 1 should apply, and maize could be included. Later, I shall be submitting a Schedule of this kind for your Lordships' approval.
As regards secondary products, flour is a related product and Mr. Soames suggested that it was conceivable that flour could be imported at such low prices as to wreck the market for wheat. Even if one accepts that contention as a possibility, again there is no reason at all why that product should not be included in the Schedule. These are the only two instances given in justification for taking these enormous powers over an immeasurably wide range of goods. It is not merely for directly related products, like flour, but for any "substance or article of a like nature or use". I submit that that means fixing a price and levying import taxes not merely on directly related products, such as wool, hide, skins and leather, but on cotton, rayon and other man-made fibres, which are substitutes for wool, or on plastic, which is a substitute for leather. Even if we consider only the Minister's example of cereals, the range of related products is very wide. It includes primary products like rice and millet, and also biscuits and cakes, animal feeding stuffs and oilcake.
We on this side of the House are wholly in favour of the sensible regulation of imports of beef, mutton and pigmeat, but why must we also include, as this Bill would, corned beef, tinned ham, Oxo, Bovril and other meat extracts, which are all directly related? Imported poultry is in competition with the meat trade and therefore a related product, and fish is related to meat because it is an alternative food. I would ask: why take powers in this Bill to put import taxes on fish? If the noble Lord says, as I have no doubt he will—and I hope he will—that this is not the intention, then he should accept the Amendment and come back at Report stage with a new subsection (10), giving only those powers which it is intended to exercise either immediately or potentially.
Under the Bill as it now stands, it would be perfectly possible for the Minister to ask for approval of an Order not only specifying a minimum for new primary products but also levying tax on a wide range of related products. We on this side would no doubt favour that part of the Order dealing with primary products but I am sure that we should be opposed to those for any related products. But we could not amend the Order; we
640
could only accept it in its entirety or reject it. I do not want to go into a dissertation about delegated legislation, but I submit that this is the most unsatisfactory way of legislating. It is impossible to give adequate consideration to important and detailed Statutory Orders in the time we are permitted in this House.
For example, only last Thursday the Select Orders Committee issued a Report on the Order transferring the functions of the Minister of Education and the Minister for Science, in which they said that the Order should not be passed without the special consideration of your Lordships' House. But we were obliged to pass the Order that same afternoon. What sort of position should we be in if we were required, at two or three hours' notice, to consider a detailed Order under this Bill of import taxes over a wide range of semi-manufactured and wholly manufactured goods? Frankly, we do not think it right. We do not think that certainly this Government can possibly be trusted with powers of this kind. Once they are on the Statute Book and people realise the position, they will make demands for their use. All sorts of pressure groups will spring up, demanding minimum import prices and taxes on imports if they are below the minimum. What about the soft drinks and cider makers, perhaps even the brewers, demanding protection against imported beverages? Milk producers would be demanding import taxes on milk products, margarine and butter. There is virtually no limit to the application of the words "of like nature and use" and "any related product". It does not seem to me that the Government have begun to think of the meaning of the words they use or of the far-reaching effect they would have.
I have been reminded that the Special Orders Committee met on Wednesday afternoon, but I think I am right in saying that the Report was in the hands of your Lordships on Thursday morning. As a member of the Committee, I happen to know that in that case the position was unavoidable, but that is the kind of thing that could happen again, and with a complicated Order it would not allow time for it to be properly considered. The Board of Trade already have powers—no doubt the noble Lord will refer to the fact—to prohibit imports under the Import of Goods

641
(Control) Order 1954; therefore we do not need in this Bill different powers to do much the same thing in a different and, I think, less satisfactory way. It seems to me to be taking away from the Board of Trade powers which Parliament decided ten years ago they should have.
We have had a recent example in the Resale Prices Bill of how Ministers in the present Government apparently do not take their colleagues fully into their confidence before they decide to launch into legislation. It seems to me that here is another example. It will be interesting to know whether the Board of Trade have been fully consulted about this, and if they think it is the right way to handle the matter. We on these Benches feel that the Minister of Agriculture should not have the power which these words would give him, and we insist that the words referred to in the Amendment should be deleted from the Bill. If the Government then decide to come back with a new subsection which will enable them to achieve what they have said in another place, and, indeed, what the noble Lord said last week on Second Reading, they want to achieve, then we shall do our best to help them. We do not agree that we should sail into these limited uncharted seas to which the Government now ask us to agree. I therefore urge the noble Lord to accept the Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, leave out from ("description") to ("as").—(Lord Stonham.)
3.2 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for discussing the first two Amendments together, and I agree with him that this is a convenient way of doing it. But I should perhaps go further and mention that a certain amount of what I shall say will, I think, of necessity relate also to the first part of Amendment No. 4. I shall try not to repeat myself at too great length when we come to that Amendment.
Dealing with the first two Amendments, as the noble Lord has said, they have the effect of removing the power to specify "related products", which
642
would, in view of the function of the word "produce" in subsection (10), limit the powers to the primary agricultural and horticultural commodities. The noble Lord has, I think, made it clear that this is the purpose he has in mind. In order to apply an effective minimum import price system, it is essential that it should be possible to cover by the arrangements not only the primary agricultural or horticultural produce, but certain related commodities which these Amendments would have the effect of excluding from the powers contained in the clause. I think the noble Lord is in some doubt as to whether they would be inevitably excluded—at least I thought his argument was leading that way—but, after long consideration, we think that they would.
Taking the cereal arrangements, which, as noble Lords know, the Government wish to introduce under this legislation, it would not be practicable to apply the minimum import price system in the interests of maintaining a stable market for the main United Kingdom cereals without being able to apply the arrangements also to sector commodities which are derived from the primary cereals. Flour, as the noble Lord said, is an obvious case in point. If minimum import prices were applied and enforced on wheat, but not on wheat flour, and levies were being charged on wheat imports in order to maintain the minimum import price, exporters and importers would naturally have an inducement to trade in wheat flour rather than in wheat. Clearly, this could seriously weaken the minimum import price arrangements on wheat as a means of maintaining market stability.
The scope of the definition of "related product" in subsection (10), which these Amendments would delete, was discussed in some detail in another place. I recognise that the definition is very widely drafted, but I can assure noble Lords that this was looked at most carefully before being discussed in another place, and has been looked at carefully again since. As noble Lords know, it has been considered right to draft this legislation in general enabling terms so that the Ministers concerned would be empowered to apply the minimum import price and levy arrangements to any agricultural or horticultural produce if circumstances requiring

643
this arose. In other words, although the Government have plans at present to apply the minimum import prices only in the cereals sector, it is considered, in view of the rapidly changing situation in the world markets for temperate foodstuffs, and the widespread interest in international agreements governing these commodities, that it is right not to confine the legislation to cereals, but to take general powers which could be implemented by order.
In drafting the definition of "related product", which is included in the clause, we came up against the problem that it was impossible to say precisely what range of related products it might be necessary in practice to prescribe. In the case of cereals, we propose to specify at the outset, in addition to the main cereal grains, the cereal flours, groats, meals and other types of worked cereals and cereal offals. We cannot rule out the possibility that it may be necessary, in the light of experience of operating the arrangements on cereals, to alter the list which we specify initially. What "related products" would need to be specified in sectors other than cereals. if it became necessary to apply minimum price arrangements to these, would also need to be considered in detail when the arrangements were being framed, and the powers in the clause, we think, must clearly allow for this. If a tight and limiting definition of "related products", were included in the clause, there would therefore be a real danger that it would be found, in practice, that some "related products" which it was necessary to include within the arrangements were excluded by the drafting.
This is why it was found necessary to include in the clause a wide definition of "related product". The Ministers' powers to specify commodities are, however, limited by the provisions laying down the purposes for which the powers may be exercised. This is a matter of importance which was, I think, overlooked by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, or at least was made light of by him.
LORD SHEPHERD: Which part of the Bill is this?
LORD ST. OSWALD: The opening words of Part I of the Bill.
LORD STONHAM: The words, "in the interests of maintaining …".
LORD ST. OSWALD: What it means is that the Ministers concerned would have to show that it was necessary to specify commodities in the interests of maintaining in the United Kingdom a stable market for agricultural and horticultural produce of any description produced here. If the noble Lord wants the exact words, they are in the opening words of Part I of the Bill. This, I should have thought, would be a clear enough guide for Parliament to take into account. Clearly the more remote any "related product" was from the ordinary primary produce to which it related, the less likely it would he that the Ministers could make out a case for specifying it. I do not know whether the noble Lord wishes to contradict me on that, but I should have thought it was entirely logical.
In addition, the clause provides that any order specifying a commodity must be approved by Affirmative Resolution in both Houses of Parliament. This would mean that Parliament would have the opportunity in debate of scrutinising and examining the Government's justification for specifying particular commodities included in the order. The initial step in introducing the arrangements in Clause 1 of any particular commodity would always require such an Affirmative Resolution of each House. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said that these provisions were as wide as a barn door, but the point I would make to him is that Parliament has to give permission for the opening of the barn door.
LORD STONHAM: But only one side has the key.
LORD ST. OSWALD: One side or another at any given time may be able to exert greater leverage on the key, this is perfectly true, but that is so in any aspect of legislation. The noble Lord said that maize and flour were only two instances of where this may lead, but I think it would be unwise to choose to specify other commodities, because it might lead to the mistaken conclusion that there was a firm intention to do SO.
I think that perhaps his main argument in advance of what I am saying

645
was that it was impossible to debate Orders in the time given in this House. I think this is not really a matter for me to comment upon. But he also said, if I understood him correctly, that he thought the occasion might arise where there was only two or three hours' notice for the House to study Orders. In fact, of course, these Orders will in the main be orders laid before the House and both Houses of Parliament will be given 40 days in which to pray against them.
I have tried to explain why it was felt necessary to draft the definition of "related product" in the broad terms which are included in the clause, and how other provisions in the clause as a whole would have the effect of circumscribing the freedom of the Ministers concerned to specify individual commodities. I can assure the Committee that this is a point of view which my right honourable friend has looked at most carefully. The clause, as it stands, is the most satisfactory way which has been found of providing the powers which are necessary in view of the generally enabling nature of the legislation, and I fear I cannot accept the Amendment.
3.14 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, will again consider this Amendment. There may be difficulty in finding words of the right kind, but I do not think there is a great division of principle between the noble Lord opposite and my noble friend Lord Stonham. Undoubtedly, the Bill as drafted gives sweeping powers to the Minister. If he were to use some of these powers we might well find that, apart from the raw materials which are involved, there were many by-products which were major imports into this country from our Commonwealth friends. One would hope that before any power is used, whether it is for the basic material or for a by-product, there would be consultation with our Commonwealth friends, but so far as this House is concerned my noble friend was quite correct in suggesting that this House might find itself in extreme difficulties when orders were placed before it.
My noble friend drew our attention to the Special Orders Committee. The Chairman will correct me if I am wrong,
646
but I think it is not part of the duty of the Special Orders Committee to consider the principles behind an order. They are not called upon to consider the national aspects which might flow from it. Their duty is very narrow in the sense that they have to decide whether the order is a matter of principle and whether it raises a matter of public importance. The Committee can advise the House that it does, but it does not consider in detail the substance of the order. Therefore, the Special Orders Committee does not consider the facts that may be behind the order, or the implications of the order on this nation as a whole or on our Commonwealth and overseas trading friends. Therefore, I should not regard the Special Orders Committee in any way as a protection in this legislation.
We know that very often when we have an order before this House it covers a fairly wide range of subjects: they are related to the Bill, it is true, but they contain considerable detail. My noble friend is quite correct in saying that the House has no alternative but to accept an order or reject it completely. We may agree with 99 per cent. of the contents of the order but there may be difficulty over the remaining one per cent. On these orders we have no opportunity of moving an Amendment, and the House is therefore placed in the position that it may have to accept this one per cent. to which objection is taken simply in order to attain the 99 per cent. which it supports.
It may be that we could look at our methods of conducting our Business in future, but this is the situation to-day. The Government are taking these very wide powers, and they are able to use the present system to get an order through without Parliament being able to amend it. Therefore I hope that, if the Minister cannot accept the words of the Amendment, he will give a firm undertaking to your Lordships' House that, in the case of an order of considerable importance, covering a wide range of goods, at least a White Paper will be issued so that the House will have an opportunity to discuss that White Paper and perhaps, if necessary, have a Division upon it. As, the noble Lord knows, we have been extremely reluctant over the years to divide on Orders. I remember an undertaking

647
being given some years ago (I think it was by the Ministry of Transport) that, recognising our difficulties on orders, they would produce a White Paper so that the House could discuss it and perhaps move an Amendment to it. In other words, they would make it possible for the House to notify to the Government its feelings on the proposal.
I do not think that there is here any question of division in principle. We are particularly concerned at the wide sweeping powers which the Government are taking in this Bill, the difficulty that this House and the other place will have in carrying out any Amendment that they may feel necessary, and I should have thought it would not be beyond the powers of the Parliamentary draftsmen to find sufficient words to cover, in the first instance, the question of cereals, and other words which would at least give some limitation to these sweeping powers.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Before the noble Lord replies further, I think we must bear in mind what your Lordships are asked to do in Committee this afternoon and what has been the basis of this Amendment that is before us. We are asked to leave out the words, "related product". Both sides of the Committee, I believe, are agreed on the principle underlying this clause, that there should be this measure of import regulations or control to put a floor in the market. The question is, how does one do it practically? It can be done by fiscal measures, as is proposed now, or by physical measures of physical control. There is a parallel, surely, in the physical controls which are already on the Statute Book and which are operated by the Board of Trade. In these cases it has been found necessary, if Parliament is given a physical control over imports in that way, to include some form of words like "related product"; otherwise, the intention is stultified.
If you take out of this clause the words "or related product" or something which means that, you find yourself in this great difficulty: that when you are trying to control barley, you have no right to do anything about maize; or when you are dealing with wheat you have no right to deal with
648
flour. It is a pragmatic point. You obviously must have the right to deal with it in that way. I should have thought that these words, which have been most seriously looked at in another place, at all stages of the Bill, are the words of the Parliamentary draftsmen. I understand that they have been used before, in other legislation, and it seems to me that they must be the right words. We do not, I am sure, accuse noble Lords opposite of being tendentious here and trying to spoil this clause by taking out this phrase. What is before the Committee now is that we should take out the words "or related product". If we do that, surely this clause is spoiled, because any legislation must have the right to deal with flour at the same time as it deals with wheat.
LORD STONHAM: May I interrupt the noble Earl? He would be quite right if we merely took out the words and left it at that. But he will be aware, if he looks at the Order Paper, that there are other Amendments later on which will do the job in another and, as we think, better way.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: One begs leave to doubt whether they will do it in a better way. If we take this Amendment as it stands, I think the Committee would not be right to accept it and take out these words. I hope the Committee will do no such thing.
LORD HAWKE: It is rather a pity that the English language does not contain a substitute for the words "related product", because at first sight they seem extremely wide. I have no doubt that the Chinese have an ideograph which would be suitable for the purpose, if only we could find it. Having looked at the words, and pronounced them too wide you have to go back to the beginning of the clause, and before you can touch a related product you have to prove that it is in the interest of maintaining a stable market for United Kingdom agricultural or horticultural products. I do not know to whom you prove that, but I think it would be rather far-fetched to go to law or to Parliament or to anybody else, and to try to prove that it is necessary to restrict the imports of Terylene in order to preserve the price of British cross-bred wool, which I think is what

649
the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was suggesting. In default of any better words of the English language, I cannot conceive how it can be better signified than in these words. With the principle I am heartily in agreement, as most of your Lordships are. The greater the production, the higher the price for British agriculture, the better I am pleased.
LORD WALSTON: I think we all agree—and noble Lords who have spoken so far all agree—that we are at one with the objectives of this clause. Obviously, if we are trying to stabilise prices for home producers, we must have control, not only over the prices of the smaller imports but on other competitive imports. So far as that goes, there is no difference between us. But I agree with my noble friends that this drafting gives an extremely wide scope; and wider, I think, than Parliament should allow. Naturally, Parliamentary draftsmen wish to draw a Bill as wide as they can, because there is no "comeback" on them if, in the future, a Government wish to do something and it is not included in the Bill. If it is included —and the wider it is drafted, the more likely it is to be included—the better those who have to operate the Act are satisfied. I think it is our job here to see that this blanket does not cover too many bodies. At the moment I agree with my noble friends in thinking that it does cover far too many bodies. It covers as many bodies as you wish to put under it. Under the clause as it stands, it may be possible, in order to protect the consumption of English cabbages, to put restrictions on the importation of French asparagus, because if people can get cheap asparagus they are not going to buy cabbage. That is the width with which this Bill enables the Government to operate.
I hope that the Minister will not be adamant in this matter, accepting the fact that we all want the same thing, and will take it back and think again. The fact that this point has been discussed at length in another place, as the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, said, is surely no argument for not giving it further consideration. There are a good many other things discussed in another place which have been altered in this Chamber with
650
occasional somewhat far-reaching results, as in the case of the Peerage Bill. The fact that a clause has gone through another place must not be brought forward as an argument that we must accept it without any further discussion at all. I hope that when the Minister replies he will accept that there is a genuine problem here; that the Bill as now drafted errs on the side of being too widely drawn, and that he will use his undoubted ability and intelligence, and that of his helpers, to see that something rather closer to what we want emerges.
LORD STONHAM: I was delighted at the intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave—a very reasonable intervention, I thought, particularly because he has, as it were, come back to the fold. I am even more delighted that we can welcome back on these Benches, after far too long an interval, our noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh. It begins to shape itself like an old boys' reunion. But my noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh is the daddy of us all, so far as this subject is concerned. I think the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, put the point of difference precisely and exactly, except that he said you cannot do without the words "related product". I hope to submit later on that we ought to be able to deal with it in another way.
I should like to reinforce the appeal made by my noble friend Lord Walston that the Minister should agree to look at this again. In so doing, let him take note of what his noble friend Lord Hawke said. We ought to find other words for "related" or "related product". If you look at the definition in the Bill of what "related product" means, in subsection (10) you will see that it says, leaving out the intervening words:
" and 'related products' … means 'any related product'
When you have to use the actual words to define what you are defining, then I think we have come to the outer edge; and it really is not good enough. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, will not be satisfied by saying, as he did to my noble friend Lord Shepherd, that the safeguard is there because the Minister can only come for

651
ward with an Order and show that what he proposes is:
"in the interest of maintaining in the United Kingdom a stable market for agricultural or horticultural produce."
Successive Ministers of Agriculture have come forward to show that for the last eleven or twelve years. We now come to this Bill, which proves beyond a peradventure that we have not got a stable market for agriculture; though every proposal they brought forward was said to be in the interests of agriculture, they now have to come with this Bill which admits that they have all failed. I feel very strongly that the Government should not come to us with a form of words which embraces so many things, and which they have not the slightest intention of doing. I hope, therefore, the noble Lord will tell us they will take this back again and have another look at it.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: The noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, and the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, have suggested that the interpretation of these provisions is in some way controlled by the initial words of subsection (1). But, of course, there is no control. This is not a case in which you could go to the courts and ask for a declaration that a regulation was ultra vires. There is nothing of that kind in it. So long as the Minister says that he thinks it is in the interests of maintaining a stable market, that is the end of it. There is no control beyond the opinion of the Minister other than such control as Parliament is able to exercise by voting against the regulation when it is made.
With regard to the scope of the powers which were asked for, let it be observed that "related products" means, in effect, every article of any kind whatsoever which is derived by any kind of process of manufacture, including admixture, with other articles in order to arrive at the ultimate result. Therefore, it includes, for example, not only flour, but starch; and because it is defined so as to include articles which may be used in substitution of any of these things, it will include a very wide range of other things. Starch, for example, is very widely used as an adhesive. This power would enable a prohibition or an import duty to be imposed upon some
652
other substance of a totally different origin which was used as an adhesive.
LORD HAWKE: May I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? Is he at the moment giving his own opinion, or are these words which have been used by a Government lawyer in another place as a definition of related produce?
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I am, of course, giving my own opinion upon what is contained in the Bill, and I am perfectly prepared to justify it by the definition of a "related product", which is given in subsection (10), because it is defined as
"any product of a description which is obtained from"
agricultural produce. But not only that; it is
"any product of a description which is obtained … from any related product".
Therefore, you can advance from stage to stage in the process of manufacture, no matter how many stages it goes through, and every one of the articles so produced is a "related product". In addition to that, something which is obtained by the use of an agricultural product is also a "related product". So the use, in fact, may be a quite minor part of the process, but if it is an essential one you still have a related product which is within the scope of this definition.
Also, it is provided that a related product is one in which either a previous related product or an agricultural product is a material, a component or ingredient, it matters not how small is the proportion. In addition to that, any substance or article of a like nature or like use is a related product. Therefore, as I said just now, starch is a derivative of flour; it is used as, among other things, an adhesive, and any other adhesive whatsoever, because it can be used for the same purpose, is a "related product".
You can bring within this definition an infinity of articles. Straw, which is an agricultural product, is used for the purpose of making building boards. So are a great many other things. Building boards of all kinds are manufactured. Every one of them will be a "related product" if straw is used for the purpose of making any kind of building board whatsoever. In fact,

653
what underlies this provision as it stands is a fundamental principle, to endeavour to obstruct any kind of technological or industrial progress which introduces a substitute for an article which is derived from an agricultural product. If that is the principle upon which this legislation is framed and is going to be operated, it is entirely against technological progress in any direction in which a related product within this extremely wide definition exists or can exist.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON): I wonder whether it would be convenient at this moment if I moved that the House be resumed and we had the statement. I beg to move.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.

CYPRUS
3.37 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I will, with your Lordships' permission, repeat the statement which is being made by the Commonwealth Secretary in another place on Cyprus. The terms are as follows:
"I promised to keep the House informed of further developments in Cyprus. In the last few days the situation on the island has been much calmer, though there have continued to be minor incidents. A cease-fire was negotiated at Ktima, which has eased the position there. There is, of course, still widespread tension, particularly in Nicosia.
"Early on Friday, the Turkish Government issued a warning that unless the attacks upon the Turkish-Cypriot community ceased, they might have to exercise their right of intervention under the Treaty of Guarantee.
"That night, the Security Council, by a unanimous vote, reaffirmed its earlier resolution and once again called upon all concerned to refrain from action which would worsen the situation.
"At the same time, the Secretary-General announced that substantial progress had been made in the formation of the international force.
654
Contingents have been promised by four countries. Canada has undertaken to provide about 1,000 men, of which the advance party has already arrived in Cyprus. Sweden has agreed to send one battalion and an armoured car squadron. The Republic of Ireland and Finland have also offered to contribute a battalion each. We are most anxious that everything should be done to hasten the arrival of these contingents, so that the international force may be brought into effective operation at the earliest possible moment.
"We warmly welcome this helpful response and are in close touch with the Secretary-General and the other Governments concerned about this matter and about the choice of a mediator to whose early appointment we attach great importance."
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships' House is very grateful to the Leader of the House for letting us have this statement. It is true that thereby the expert knowledge which is now put over the B.B.C. News—we have had a good deal of it before—has enabled us to make a judgment now on what statement is made; and I think that, however clever the leader of the Turkish nation has been in this matter, the result to date is encouraging. The thing that particularly strikes me is not only the anxiety of Canada to help, but the speed with which they are fulfilling the obligation they have so kindly undertaken. I am not sure from what has been broadcast from time to time whether anything like the same despatch will be present when it comes to the supply of the other contingents. Of course, we are very grateful, too, for the inducement given by the Government to go on paying part of the cost of these other contingents in company with the United States of America.
As the noble Lord says in this statement he has given to us, they are very anxious to speed things up, and it is not that we are trying to be unkind in asking about this speed; it is that we want the House to make it known to all those concerned that we are very anxious, seeing what all our men have gone through out there, that this release should come as early as possible.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. The Government, of course, share the noble Earl's anxieties about the speed with which this force can be constituted. As I have said, we shall do all we can to speed it up. I would join with him in saying how grateful we are to all four countries for joining in this force, and also in expressing the admiration we all have for the speed with which the Canadians acted.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us what is happening about the military commander in Cyprus? I understand that at the moment the one originally selected is not in Cyprus but on leave.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the United Nations force is not yet constituted, so the British troops are under the command of Major-General Carver, but I understand that General Gyani will be back in Cyprus towards the end of the week, when the United Nations force is expected to be constituted.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, while welcoming the speed with which the United Nations are carrying out this important task, would it come amiss to express gratitude for the exemplary courage and dignity with which the British troops are carrying out their task?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am sure the whole House shares my noble friend's view.

AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE BILL
3.42 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I should first of all like to say what great delight it gives me to see my noble neighbour Lord Williams of Barnburgh in his seat from which he has been missing for so long, missed by both sides of the House. His noble colleagues said it felt like an old boys' gathering. It may be that on Wednesday week there will be a Yorkshire confrontation.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: A grave possibility.
LORD ST. OSWALD: So I suspected. I was also grateful to various noble Lords opposite for saying what I felt myself, that there was certainly no great chasm separating our principles. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, echoed by various other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Hawke, said that there could not be too great difficulty, insuperable difficulty, in finding the right words for framing something more satisfactory to them than this term of "related products". I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Hawke is right in thinking that a Chinese hieroglyph may do it, but if a Chinese hieroglyph would do it I think it would not be incorporated in our legislation.
LORD STONHAM: It would be a related product.
LORD ST. OSWALD: It might well be. I cannot really give noble Lords opposite a great deal of encouragement as regards looking into this again. The fact is, as I said in my first intervention, that this matter has been looked at very deeply, both before and since it was discussed in another place. Of course, the noble Lord is right in saying that, because it has passed through another place, that does not mean it is not open to discussion here; the very opposite is of course the case. But all I can tell him is that the searching and ingenious minds of the Parliamentary draftsmen have been applied to this particular problem and they have not found an answer.
Various references have been made to the sweeping powers of the Minister, but I think I must correct again this use of language. It seems to me wrong to call the powers the sweeping powers of the Minister; they are the sweeping powers and decisions (to such extent as they are sweeping) of Parliament, because they are submitted to Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, suggested that we should produce a White Paper on every occasion. I really cannot give an undertaking to produce a White Paper before laying these Orders. On cereals, for example, the Government's general intentions have been explained during the passage of the legislation itself. But what I can say—and perhaps I am to blame for not having stressed this sufficiently already—is that the initial Order laying down the range of commodities to be covered by the

657
arrangements will be laid for Affirmative Resolution; this will give a full opportunity for debate in both Houses of Parliament, and any misgivings which either House of Parliament may feel about the use of the powers can be fully brought out.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Walston, wishes me to comment on his rather fanciful description of cabbages and asparagus being related products, but I prefer to think he did not intend me to take that too seriously. I do not know whether I could strengthen my argument, which has already been greatly strengthened to my gratification by my noble friend and predecessor Lord Waldegrave, by giving another example of why we think the powers in this form are necessary. Apart from the need to be able to specify related products because of the direct effects of not doing so on the maintenance of a stable market in the primary products—that is to say, for example, flour—it is also necessary to be able to do so because of the possible repercussion on the minimum import price arrangements of processing industry in the United Kingdom. If, for example, the minimum import price arrangements were applied to maize and not to maize meal, a processor of maize meal in the United Kingdom would have to obtain his raw material, that is maize, at or about the minimum import price, whereas maize meal could come in at prices below the minimum import price for maize. This would, of course, jeopardise the position of our own processors.
I am grateful for the extremely reasoned and reasonable way in which the Opposition's objections have been argued. I hope they will not think it cavalier of me not to give them any undertaking, any promise, to look at it again; it is simply because I think I should be misleading them by suggesting that any further scrutiny would elicit anything closer to what they require. I think the fullest possible scrutiny has been applied already to this question.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
3.49 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved to add to subsection (2):
"Provided that if the Minister is not satisfied that the market import price for any
658
specified commodity is the actual market price in the country of origin plus reasonable insurance and freight charges, he may prohibit importation."
The noble Lord said: The Committee may recall that I made this point as strongly as I could during Second Reading when I referred to our very important, in fact almost dominating, position as a food importing country, and I then gave it as my opinion that in fixing a minimum British import price we were in effect fixing a minimum world export price. There would thus, as I reason, be an artificial raising of prices which would inevitably mean dearer foodstuffs for the farmer and dearer food for the housewife. If, for example, the market price of barley in France was £17 a ton and the Minister's minimum import price was £20 a ton, the importing merchants and dealers would get together, buy on the French market at £17 a ton and sell it to us at £20. They would not be such fools as to sell it at £17 and lose the chance of making this huge extra profit which a benevolent Conservative Government—benevolent to the dealers—had provided for them.
The memorandum issued by our own home millers and merchants confirms this up to the hilt. In effect, the trade says that once the Government declare a minimum price for a commodity no one will sell below that price. I think that is almost indisputable. There would thus be no levy collected because there would be no imports at below the minimum price. We should be simply making a present to the foreigner of the difference between their market price and our minimum. This Amendment would prevent that. It would enable the Minister to ascertain the market price in the country of origin, and if it is lower than the minimum import price, to say in effect to the importers, "You either import at the market price plus the charges mentioned in the Amendment, or you do not import at all."
When a similar Amendment was moved in Standing Committee in another place the Minister of Agriculture produced what I regard as the wholly fallacious argument that it was an anti-dumping Amendment which was in conflict with GATT. I have heard this argument about GATT produced many

659
times. I think it is much like "related products." Civil servants produce the GATT argument when they can think of no reasonable and convincing argument to a point. I think it is because almost no one outside Whitehall—or they think that almost no one outside Whitehall—understands GATT, and few people inside understand it.
But I do not think that it will work on this occasion. The provisions in Clause 1 are fiscal provisions, and this is a fiscal and not a quantitative Amendment. It has nothing to do with antidumping, which has already been provided for in other legislation, imperfect though it is. This Amendment is expressly designed to ensure that when prices overseas are lower than the minimum import price fixed by the Minister we should get some income from import taxes and the floor will still be there and the home market undamaged; but if the Bill remains unaltered the floor will be there all right but it will be littered with squatters, the squatters being sturdy foreign exporters seated comfortably on the floor we have provided for them and enjoying these extra, uncovenanted profits that we shall have showered on them.
I know that outside this Bill the Minister of Agriculture has reached agreement in principle with our four major overseas suppliers of cereals for their co-operation in the proposed minimum import prices. Just how they co-operate is apparently to be left to them. I must emphasise a fact that the Government constantly run away from. This Bill and the Amendment deal not not only with cereals but with all agricultural and horticultural produce and with related products. To talk about a partial agreement on cereals with four of our main suppliers as if it were the whole answer is, in my submission, nonsense. It is not a twentieth part of the whole answer. In any case, the four-country agreement on cereals is not in conflict with this Amendment, nor does it render it unnecessary, because if the agreement is in operation the market prices in those countries, in my submission, will not be below the international minimum. I do not see how they possibly can be.
In the agreement which he seeks on cereals, the Minister is not proposing quantitative limitations for the foreigners; he is proposing to impose standard quantities which are quantitative limitations only on British farmers. That is an essential part of the bargain which he eventually hopes to make with overseas suppliers. He will say to them, "You agree to a minimum import price into Britain, see that it is observed, and, in return, we will impose quantitative restrictions on the production of British farmers." It would be intolerable, while we ask our farmers to limit their output and their income—in other words, to make a sacrifice—as part of the price we think they should pay for a stable market, at the same time to present foreign farmers and dealers with an unearned extra profit. I think that would be quite fantastic.
Another fantastic effect of Clause 1 as it stands is the position of those countries—and there are some—which refuse to enter into quantitative agreements: the non-agreement countries. It is the Government's intention to impose a levy on imports from them. The levy will be the difference between the world market price and the British minimum price. But that means they will certainly be getting as extra profit the amount by which the world price exceeds their own market price, and we shall be paying that much extra. In fact, we shall be putting a premium on non-co-operation, and the non-agreeing countries will be making these extra profits.
When this Amendment was moved in Standing Committee in another place, it was carried against the Government; but during the Report stage the Amendment was defeated without, in my view, any kind of satisfactory explanation. I hope that, not for the first time, your Lordships will put the record straight by supporting this Amendment, accepting it, and thus ensuring that although the floor remains in British agriculture, we shall be buying overseas at the lowest possible price, and when the produce has emerged it will, whenever appropriate, be subjected to import levies. That, I would submit, is expressly following the first words in this Bill, in the interests of a stable British agriculture, and in the interest of the nation as a whole. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 9 at end insert the said proviso. —(Lord Stonham.)
3.59 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, recalled that when this Amendment, or a similar Amendment, was being debated in another place my right honourable friend on that occasion took it to refer to dumping. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has made it clear that it does not refer to dumping; but I ought to point out—this is not a debating point—that in point of fact until he spoke the Amendment as worded by him and his noble friends was still open to that interpretation. However, he has made it clear that his Amendment is designed to enable the Minister to prohibit imports from being sold here at a price above the internal price of the exporting country, presumably allowance having been made for insurance and freight charges.
LORD WALSTON: Did the noble Lord say it is at a price above or at a price below?
LORD ST. OSWALD: Importing at a price above the internal price in the exporting country. I think that was the intention of his noble friend.
LORD STONHAM: That is quite right.
LORD ST. OSWALD: This is a point which was also considered at great length in another place, once the interpretation had been made clear to my right honourable friend when fears were expressed about the possibility of traders making a "killing" by buying at low prices in exporting countries and making big profits by reselling to the United Kingdom at our minimum import price and so avoiding any levies. I think this fear still remains in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham.
The levy arrangements which the Government propose to introduce for cereals would, in fact, safeguard us against this sort of thing happening. In circumstances where levies were being applied, the individual trader could put up his price artificially to our minimum import price only if he could, in so doing, evade the levies. If he were unable to evade the levy, the effect of charging a higher price than the general
662
market level would be to price him out of the market. That is why it is proposed in the case of cereals to depend primarily on two types of flat rate levy: the general levy and the country levy, and not on levies related to the invoiced prices of individual consignments. As I explained on Second Reading, this will be charged if necessary, but only if necessary, on imports from non-co-operating countries and co-operating countries respectively.
In the case of those countries—I really am hopeful of setting the noble Lord's mind at rest on this—which are unwilling or unable to co-operate with us, there will in fact be no premium on non-co-operation, as the noble Lord thought. The general levy would be applied, if necessary, at a rate related to the difference between the minimum import price of the commodity and the lowest representative prices at which supplies of that commodity were available for import into the United Kingdom from all non-co-operating sources. I do not know whether the noble Lord had fully understood that.
LORD STONHAM: That is precisely what we are asking for in the Amendment. There is no reason, therefore, why it should not be accepted at once.
LORD ST. OSWALD: What the noble Lord has in effect said is that his Amendment is unnecessary. Am I right?
LORD STONHAM: I want the words written into the Bill. You have only told me what is the Minister's intention.
LORD ST. OSWALD: This is in fact what will be carried out.
LORD WALSTON: This is a terribly important point. Could the noble Lord repeat what he has said so that we get it quite clear?
LORD ST. OSWALD: Yes, willingly. I said, rightly as it turned out, that I should be setting the noble Lord's mind at rest. In the case of those countries which are unwilling or unable to cooperate with us, the general levy would be applied, if necessary, at a rate related to the difference between the minimum import price of the commodity concerned and the lowest representative prices at which supplies of that commodity were available for import into

663
the United Kingdom from all non-cooperating sources. I am sure I do not need to spell that out to the noble Lord. But what this could mean is that there might be two non-co-operating countries, one selling, let us say, barley at £17 a ton, and another selling barley at £16 a ton. If the non-co-operating country, with an offering price of £17 a ton, sold at that price to Britain, the difference of the levy would be not as between £17 and, let us say, £19, but between £16 and £19. I think that perhaps I should not waste any further time of the Committee if I have satisfied the noble Lord on that aspect—although I have a great deal more to say, if required.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I should like to ask my noble friend one question. The noble Lord said "all the non-co-operating countries". Is that the same as "each of the non-co-operating countries"? I expected him to say "each"; and I was rather perplexed by "all".
LORD ST. OSWALD: There is a distinct difference. This is perhaps what was disturbing the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. The world will be divided, as it were, into two parts: the co-operators (for whom there might be a country levy though we hope it will be unnecessary, because they are co-operating) and the non-co-operating countries, the rest of the world, for whom there will be a flat-rate levy based on the lowest representative price at which the particular commodity is available from those other countries.
LORD HAWKE: While the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, appears to me to be utterly impracticable, I must say that the system outlined by my noble friend seems to be equally impracticable. I do not know whether the grain trade has changed a great deal since I knew something about it, but I cannot see that the cargo brought to Falmouth for orders, for instance, will ever have any place in the world's markets again. The great grain merchants of the world, having brought forward their cargoes, would see that those cargoes would not be destined specially for this country, but destined for whichever port in Europe happened to be paying the best price when the ship was nearing the Channel approaches. How
664
one could make a special levy based on the price of the commodity in one particular country when one is probably having to buy it from another country, I just cannot understand. The full quantity which this market requires may not be available in the cheapest country. In fact, the cheapest country might be a small exporter. Yet apparently you are going to make a levy on the grain bought from perhaps your main source but based on the price current in a smaller market, and temporarily a cheaper market. I think that to have this levy varying according to the lowest price in any part of the world is a most extraordinary method of trying to conduct this operation. But, as I have already said, I think that Lord Stonham's Amendment is still equally impracticable.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: Do I interpret the noble Lord aright when he refers to a co-operating exporter? Does he interpret a co-operating country as the one which, for example, is going to sell us barley at £17 a ton, and we think it is not enough, and very kindly agrees to charge us £20.
LORD STONHAM: That is cooperation!
LORD ST. OSWALD: That is the way in which I should have expected the noble Lord to put it.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: Is it correct?
LORD WALSTON: I am most confused by this, and I hope that I shall not exhibit my ignorance too publicly by speaking now. As I understand it from what the noble Lord has said, there are the four co-operating countries, Canada, United States, Argentine and Australia, which have agreed to charge us rather more than they otherwise would for the produce which they are going to send us, and we are truly grateful for that. We then have the non-co-operating countries—say for argument's sake, Iraq, France, Chile and possibly Russia.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I wonder whether I could explain the situation at this point. There is no question of blackballing any countries who wish to co-operate with us on fair trading terms.
LORD WALSTON: No, certainly not. But let us try to see what happens in those countries. Suppose that Iraq has a big surplus of barley—very dry, very hard barley, rather sought after by some of our feeding-stuffs manufacturers—which they are prepared to sell to us at £12 a ton (that has not been unknown in the last few years); that Russia has a huge surplus of barley, or possibly they are short of barley but, for various other reasons, they are prepared to sell to us at £10 a ton; that France has a small surplus of barley which they will let us have at £18 a ton as opposed to the £30 a ton that their local producers are getting; and that merchants are prepared to buy from those different countries. They buy on different days and different months; at different times. They do not know how much they will have to pay in the form of levy for that barley when it eventually arrives at Hull, London or Liverpool—and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has said, very often the ship receives instructions while at sea as to which port, or even which country, it is to go to.
Now at what stage does the noble Lord's Ministry draw the line and say, "The price to-day is the Iraqi price of £12 a ton. Therefore, the £18 a ton barley coming from France, which has been shipped from Brest and is about to to go to Liverpool, will have to pay a levy as if it were being bought at £12 a ton"? When does it say that? How does it work that out? Does it do it weekly, monthly or daily? I think these are very important points, because the whole working of this Bill, if it becomes an Act, depends on matters of that kind; and whether in fact it collapses entirely and becomes a complete shambles, whether it interferes entirely with the normal import processes, which I believe noble Lords opposite are very anxious to sustain, or whether it is going to result in the British compounder and the British farmer having to pay infinitely more than he otherwise would, are all very relevant considerations. Perhaps the noble Lord would explain to us just how this is going to work.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The minimum import price is fixed as an early move in the succession of Orders that this process entails; but, as regards the levy to be fixed for an individual country, the
666
arrangements for making or applying this levy will in fact be included in the Order required to specify this. I do not know whether the noble Lord was aware of that. This is to be specified, laid before Parliament and, if necessary, debated in Parliament; so I cannot possibly say at this stage what an individual Order will contain, or what would be proposed in an individual Order laid before Parliament.
LORD WALSTON: Does that mean, then, that an importer is free to buy his Iraqi barley at £12 a ton and bring it into this country without any levy being paid on it until such time as the Government have decided on a levy and it has been debated in Parliament, by which time the barley may have been not only landed but actually consumed?
LORD ST. OSWALD: I cannot help feeling that the grain producers in Iraq are not quite as naive as the noble Lord thinks they are. I think that, perhaps knowing and having studied the provisions as deeply as the noble Lord will have studied them by that time, they will have something to say about the price at which they sell, as will the grain producers in other countries.
I should say, perhaps, to my noble neighbour, Lord Williams of Barn-burgh, who made this very fair point, that we are, it is true, if he wishes to look at it in that way, inviting these cooperating countries to sell us grain at prices higher than they normally might; that what we are trying to do and what we are succeeding in doing, we hope, by these measures is to cut out the deep and embarrassing troughs in price due to there being unloaded on our market low-priced cereals; which have been the bane of agricultural Ministers since his time.
LORD HAWKE: May I ask this question of my noble friend—we are beginning to get a little more light on this matter now. Apparently we are going to have an Order which the Minister will make saying that the levy on, say, barley—we are using barley as an example—is £3 a ton. That Order, presumably, has been based on information about the market some time before the Minister has made the Order. What happens when the market goes up again, and we find we cannot import and pay

667
a levy and, at the same time, satisfy the producers?
LORD ST. OSWALD: I am sorry. I cannot quite see at what point I misled my noble friend, but it is clear that I have misled him. The levy is not fixed rigidly. The levy fluctuates according to the representative price of offering. It fluctuates as between the minimum import price as an upper limit and the representative price in the country of origin, according (in the case of cooperating countries) to which country it may be and what that price may be.
LORD HAWKE: On the date the cargo arrives in this country the Ministry ascertains the market price in Argentina or Iraq, or anywhere else, and the levy on that cargo is based on that price. Is that it?
LORD ST. OSWALD: No. It is unlikely that it will fluctuate daily. I cannot say, until in fact the Orders are made, exactly what the method of making arrangements for the levy will be, but it is, on the whole, improbable that it will change, at any rate daily, although we do not exclude the possibility of needing a consignment levy if, in the course of practice, this proves necessary.
LORD WALSTON: Again, I must have misunderstood the noble Lord on one thing, either in his last remarks or in his earlier remarks. I thought he said earlier that the levy was going to be based, not on the individual country's price but on the lowest price at which it was being sold in the world, in all the exporting non-co-operating countries.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Yes.
LORD WALSTON: But in his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, he has just said it is going to be based on the price in the country from which the export is being made.
LORD ST. OSWALD: So far as cooperating countries are concerned, it will be based on the individual country's price, but how often that price will be changed, or the way in which that price may move, I cannot foresee. The noble Lord is quite right in having followed me as saying that the representative price of the non-co-operating countries will
668
be, as it were, the lowest representative price among them, but I also cannot say that that price will remain fixed.
LORD STONHAM: The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, said just now that the discussion had shed more light on the subject. It certainly has not shed more wisdom. In fact, the light which has been shed has shown one thing beyond any kind of shadow of doubt: that these proposals with regard to the non-cooperating countries cannot possibly work at all. There is no possibility of their working.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My silence does not represent agreement.
LORD STONHAM: The noble Lord's silence represents the fact that he has run completely out of arguments, and I think that was the reason why he halted suddenly in his first speech when, as he said himself, he had a great deal more to say. I have listened with very great care, as indeed have all your Lordships, and I do not dispute that, with regard to the co-operating countries, the price of their co-operation will be a very substantial bonus that we shall give them merely for their kindness in charging us more than they otherwise would have charged. Well, if that is the way the Government want it, it is perfectly clear; but so far as the non-co-operating countries—
LORD ST. OSWALD: I wonder whether I might interrupt once more. I realise it is appalling to keep on doing so. But I am sure the noble Lord does not want to give the impression that we are getting absolutely nothing in exchange for what he describes as a "bonus" to the co-operating countries. The fact is that in this understanding, they have agreed with us, in principle, as the noble Lord himself said, to limit their imports through the medium of minimum prices.
LORD STONHAM: I was a member of the Standing Committee on the 1947 Agriculture Act; so I do not need convincing of the fact that a stable market is a first essential for British agriculture, and any steps which will assist in achieving that object will have our full support. It is the method that the Government have chosen to achieve that object with which we do not agree. We

669
do not agree that it is necessary with the co-operating countries, our friends, to raise the price and pay them more than they would otherwise have charged. In other words, we should achieve a stable method by other means; but I will not pursue that point at the moment. Leaving aside what I regard as folly—to pay millions and millions of pounds for nothing—let us come to the other side of the medal: the non-cooperating countries. The noble Lord said that we shall fix a levy which will be equal to the difference between the lowest market price operating in any one of the non-co-operating countries and the British minimum import price. If that is wrong I will certainly give way.
LORD ST. OSWALD: This remains to be arranged in the Order applying to a given commodity. I was naming simply one possible arrangement. I do not like to keep repeating this; but these things remain to be worked out in the Orders.
LORD STONHAM: I appreciate that. I am trying to be absolutely fair and to give the picture accurately. Therefore, what I said was right, at least in relation to the one commodity—cereals—which the Government have for the moment considered, and we will confine ourselves for the time being to that.
Having accepted that as accurate, the noble Lord and, apparently, the Government—because the noble Lord is well briefed on this subject and has studied it deeply—have no answer to the position which must, as the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has said, obviously arise with prices because of fluctuating demands. In fact, prices can and do change while shipments are on the High Seas and can he diverted to other ports. It is useless to argue that the alterations are not as radical as that, because prices are altered every day. So what the noble Lord is saying in objecting to, or, if you like, rejecting, my Amendment, is, "We are proposing to do most of what the noble Lord wants"; but, in fact, you are not proposing to do anything of the kind. You are only proposing to make free gifts to one set of suppliers; and to the other set of suppliers you propose to make things completely unworkable so that at most times they will not export to us at all.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: The noble Lord is entitled to say he does not like this method; but he is not entitled to say, as he keeps on saying, that this system will not work. That is quite a different matter. What is envisaged in this system is that there should be an import price below which grains will not enter this country. That can work quite well, even though the noble Lord does not like it and even if he thinks it may give undue profits to international traders or, as the noble Lord said, a bonus to other countries. That may, or may not be so. I do not know that it is wrong that a trader should occasionally make a profit. But the system is workable.
LORD STONHAM: The noble Earl will know that I have read the Bill and I was aware that one of its sheet anchors was a British minimum import price. Of course I am aware of that.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I was asking the noble Lord why he said it would not work.
LORD STONHAM: I do not say that a British minimum import price will not work. In other words, you can prohibit the entry into this country of produce at less than a certain price. Of course you can. I have no doubt that the Bill will do that. Why I think it will not work is that a good many times in a year, in different circumstances, it will be virtually impossible for these non-cooperating countries, even if they want to, to export to us, because we shall have made it impossible or, if you like, unprofitable, for them to do so; and we shall not get the consignments. That is my belief; and I am entitled to give my opinion though the noble Earl is right in saying that I should not state it as a fact. I have been thinking deeply about this for the last few years, and again and again I gave it as my opinion that the Government will have to come to the Dispatch Box and put forward a managed market or a form of managed market and will have to advocate a form of import control. To-day, that is a fact. So; what I am now giving as my opinion may in due course come about.
The noble Lord thought in his first speech that he had satisfied me; and then he sat down. I regret to have to say that he has failed to satisfy me; because,

671
however good or bad they may be, or however workable or unworkable, a Minister's intentions are not law. We want to see a provision in the Statute. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, said that the proposal in the Amendment was completely impracticable. I do not agree; because it would be possible to ascertain the actual market price in the country of origin with in a few minutes. Therefore, this Amendment is practicable. But the other, and major, reason why I cannot accept the noble Lord's method, or his reply, as being satisfactory, is that, so far as I can see, the Government have up to now applied it only to cereals, or thought about cereals, in applying their method. But of course, as the noble Lord is well aware, it will cover a whole range of staple agricultural commodities, and almost certainly the review commodities.
4.39 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (10), after "horticulture" to insert:
"as specified in Schedule (Produce to which Part 1 of Act applies) to this Act"
The noble Lord said: I trust that nothing has gone wrong with the Government, and that there have been no resignations since our last debate. I beg to move Amendment No. 4, and I hope that it will meet the convenience
Therefore the Minister could not possibly conclude international agreements in respect of all review commodities and have some of the countries co-operating at a price and others non-co-operating, and also have this utterly absurd arrangement with all the non-co-operating countries, with perhaps a dozen different commodities. I do not believe there is a single member of the Committee who agrees that the Government reply is a satisfactory one, or that their proposal will work in a satisfactory way. Therefore we will press this Amendment to a Division, and I hope noble Lords will support us in the Lobby.
4.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 45.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Stonham, L.

Attlee, E.

Lawson, L.

Summerskill, B.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Lindgren, L.

Walston, L.

Champion, L. [Teller.]

Listowel, E.

Williams, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Peddie, L.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Gardiner, L.

St. Davids, V.

Williamson, L.

Hobson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ferrers, E.

Lyle of Westbourne, L.

Albemarle, E.

Fortescue, E.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Allerton, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Malmesbury, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Greenway, L.

Margesson, V.

Amory, V.

Grenfell, L.

Merrivale, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Mersey, V.

Bossom, L.

Hastings, L.

Mills, V.

Carrington, L.

Hawke, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Conesford, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Crathorne, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

St. Just, L.

Daventry, V.

Iddesleigh, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Denham, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Somers, L.

Devonshire, D.

Lansdowne, M.

Strange of Knokin, B.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Long, V.

Swinton, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Lothian, M.

Waldegrave, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

of the Committee if I discuss with it Amendment No. 5 and Amendment No. 20, to the new Schedule. In discussing a previous Amendment, the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, hoped that I would have dealt with one of these Amendments at the same time, and in his speech he had something to say about it, so perhaps this discussion will not take quite so long. As I hope I have made plain, we on this side of the Committee are willing and anxious to support control of imports of staple agricultural commodities and horticultural produce

673
under proper conditions. We think that these three Amendments provide a completely satisfactory way of doing all that the Government say they want to do, while excluding powers contained in the Bill, which the Government say they are not going to use. The Minister has made it clear that the quid pro quo for agreement on import prices by overseas suppliers is an agreement on standard quantities by British farmers. The only products for which we are likely to seek agreement with overseas supplies are the review commodities. The whole arrangement, therefore, is likely to be closely linked with the Annual Price Review. As your Lordships will have noticed, our Amendments have been framed to cover all these points.
We seek to continue in this Bill, with adaptation, the provisions of the 1947 Act, which have worked very well. The words of Amendment No. 5—
"The Minister may after consultation with such bodies or persons as appear to him to represent the appropriate interests by order direct that Schedule (Produce to which Part I of Act applies) to this Act shall have effect for the purposes of all or any of the provisions of this part of this Act, with the addition thereto of any such produce as may be specified"—
are, in fact, taken straight from the 1947 Act. They provide means of adding, if necessary, to the list of major commodities specified in our proposed new Schedule. It can, and I am sure will, be said that the Schedule is not sufficiently comprehensive; but I would say that this presents no real difficulty. The Schedule that we are proposing is, in fact, the one to the 1947 Act, plus the addition of fresh horticultural produce and maize. Maize is added because, although it is an imported and not a home-grown cereal, the price and quantities of maize imports could affect the market for home-grown cereals.
I know that there are many other commodities—for instance, rice, sorghum and flour come to mind—which could be added. We are prepared, if the Government so wish, at a later stage in the Bill, to enlarge the list, if they come to the conclusion that a Schedule of this kind is a better way of achieving their object than the words "related products". But, in my view, it is not necessary to add to the Schedule now, because it already covers all the commodities
674
about which farmers and horticulturists are concerned. If minimum import prices, backed by levies, really provide a floor for all these commodities, the Schedule will be wide enough to ensure a prosperous British agriculture; and if at any time a related non-indigenous product threatens to endanger the floor of home-grown produce, then it can be added to the Schedule and brought within the orbit of minimum import price controls.
I submit that acceptance of these Amendments will give us an immeasurably improved Bill, because it will then do all the things the Minister wants to do and none of those things he does not want to do. It will also remove the very understandable anxiety of people who are perturbed because powers are to be taken which would have repercussions far beyond agriculture and horticulture, and who are not reassured by being told that the powers will never be used. They say: "If you do not want them, why take them?" We all know that this Bill springs from the urgent need to limit the cost to the Exchequer of deficiency payments; from the desire to save the taxpayer from having to pay so much in subsidy; and to stabilise the floor prices of the review commodities. In our submission, these Amendments will enable us to do all these things, and to be clearly seen to be doing them. I urge the Government to follow the only possible logical course and to accept the Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 26, leave out from ("horticulture") to end of line 34, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: The effect of these Amendments, as the noble Lord has made clear, would be to list the produce to which the powers in the clause may be applied and give the Minister power to specify any other produce to which he may wish to apply any of the provisions. There were two alternatives open to the Government when preparing this legislation. We could have brought forward a clause drafted in terms of cereals alone as the sector for which the powers are required immediately. The alternative was to draft the clause in terms of general enabling powers, applying to agricultural and horticultural commodities generally, and to provide for these to

675
be exercised by statutory instrument. The Government decided that it was right, in the circumstances of to-day, to take the second of these courses and to put before Parliament general enabling legislation on minimum import prices and levies. There is, it seems to us, no logically defensible halfway house between these two alternative approaches.
If some products are covered and others omitted from the scope of the powers, there must be, it seems to me, some reason and basis for distinguishing in this way. The noble Lord's new Schedule lists, in what appears to be a rather arbitrary way (I am not saying that it is more arbitrary than it need be, but, of course, any list of this kind is bound to be arbitrary), certain products and omits others. Maize is included, though in terms of the definitions in the clause this would be a "related product" of a like nature. Nevertheless, if maize is to be included in this new Schedule it seems equally important to include grain sorghums, which also compete with home-produced feeding grains, and which will need to be covered by the import price arrangements. I know that the noble Lord said he would have no objection to adding to the list if the Government thought it advisable. Moreover, the list in the Schedule also covers certain products of United Kingdom agriculture and horticulture while omitting others. Yet there appears to be no justification for this distinction in the context of this general enabling legislation.
I realise that in the noble Lord's mind there are certain criteria, but we do not find them satisfactory. As I understand the position, it is not the wish of noble Lords opposite to limit the powers to the produce listed in the Schedule, since the second Amendment we are considering gives the power to specify any products other than those listed. The effect of these Amendments taken together would, therefore, enable the Minister to specify any produce. This, of course, is precisely what the clause as drafted achieves. I must therefore confess that I find it difficult to see how the total result of these Amendments alters the range of produce to which the Minister would be empowered to apply the provisions in Clause 1. Indeed, as I have explained, the Government can see no justification for including in the
676
scope of these general enabling powers certain products of agriculture and horticulture and excluding others.
I suggest to noble Lords opposite that the clause as drafted achieves the same objectives as the Amendments, and in a rather more straightforward and satisfactory way. In these circumstances, I hope—though with rather less confidence since the last Amendment—that noble Lords opposite will be ready to accept the clause as drafted. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, spoke of people being perturbed by the idea that anything could be covered; but I should have thought that, in so far as they are liable to perturbation, they would be more specifically perturbed by reading the list put down by the noble Lord.
LORD STONHAM: I just cannot understand how people will be more perturbed when they read a limited list than they would be if they realised that the list of commodities was all-embracing. The way the noble Lord wants it, everything is in; everything is subject to this machinery. The way we have it in our Schedule, the only commodities put down would be those thought necessary and helpful, and in the interests of the stability and prosperity of British agriculture. Surely no member of the N.F.U. would be alarmed if he saw in the 1964 Agriculture and Horticulture Act the same commodities with which he has lived under the 1947 Act for the last seventeen years. I cannot see anything in that argument, and I am sorry that the Minister should use it. Nevertheless, I am grateful to him for his valiant attempt to do the impossible and give a satisfactory answer to our Amendment other than accepting it. I have to tell him that we are completely unconvinced.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.52 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: This clause is such an important one, and there are so many important matters which it is not possible to discuss in the form of Amendments, that I should be grateful if the noble Lord could deal with one or two of them, and perhaps in the course of his reply he may be able to give us some information. The first point I want to put to him is that the

677
clause deals with conditions which will arise from over-supply. I think he will agree with that. It deals with avoiding the unfortunate consequences to the British farmer of over-supply on the world market. But its defect is that it does not ensure supplies. It is proposed to make an agreement with the countries that are co-operating for minimum prices. But there is no certainty that they will supply given quantities. Indeed, so far as meat is concerned, it has been impossible to come to any agreement about quantities and I should like to know what the Government intend to do about this, if anything.
For example, on Saturday the Daily Express editorial said that beef was up a shilling. The editorial went on:
"You must not blame the butcher or the Government, but the Argentinian suppliers who have decided to send their beef to more profitable markets."
I went to my butcher to check, and found that Scotch sirloin was 7s. per lb. and topside was 6s. 6d.; so that on this occasion, at least, the Daily Express was right. Import levies may raise the prices in glut condition, but they will not ensure supplies, and price agreements with foreign countries are not agreements to supply. They are no sort of substitute for the long-term bulk purchase agreement which Labour Governments have made in the past in order to ensure supplies at fair, stable prices. All this Bill will do is to put prices up to the housewife while giving no certainty that the supplies will come.
The second point I want to put to the noble Lord is that the Minister's hoped-for bargain with the National Farmers' Union is to fix with foreign suppliers, on the one hand, minimum import prices and to agree with our own farmers standard quantities. That, I submit, is one of the main reasons for Clause 1. Where will the standard quantities start and what arrangement is it intended to make for growth to meet the natural increase in home demand? In other words, what arrangements will be built into these standard agreements so that home farmers will be able to benefit from an increase in demand at home?
I hope that the Minister will give us some assurance on this point, otherwise it seems that Clause 1 presages a policy
678
of restriction of home production—a semi-managed market based on scarcity and much higher prices to the consumer. In fact, it seems that the Government are bartering a saving to the taxpayer of deficiency payments with a vastly increased food bill to the taxpayer as a consumer. This semi-managed market will depend on price control administered by a machine which does not yet exist.
Finally, what machinery have the Government in mind to keep home suppliers and overseas suppliers under control? What machinery do they envisage to phase supplies, and what machinery will there be to secure information? I feel there must be a separate, highly placed organisation, under, of course, the control of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to keep these matters under constant review. I do not think it can be done by a sub-department of the Ministry, and I think he will agree that we—that is, the farmers and the public—are entitled to know how it will be done.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, put three questions to me. I do not think he would expect me to answer them at great length, since they were very straightforward basic questions. He says that the Bill deals with a condition of over-supply, I thought he was going on to visualise a near-famine, but this was not so: he was not being as imaginative as that. However, I think he would agree that in fact one can foresee a general level of world prices a year ahead: not, as we know, from month to month, but likely world prices, as commodities are made available to this country; and of course the minimum import price is not rigidly fixed. It can be altered again by another Order laid before Parliament. Therefore, this is not a level of import prices fixed for ever and unalterable, whatever the market conditions in the rest of the world.
The noble Lord referred to the fact that minimum import prices and standard quantities went together, and this, of course, is quite true. This is the conception of the new policy. He asked me when the standard quantities would start and what he knew I was going to say was that this, as has been made known, will emerge in the Agricultural Price Review, so that I cannot tell him that to-day. When the Review is pub

679
lished it will include references to that. The noble Lord foresaw a vastly increased bill to the consumer. We cannot see this vastly increased bill to the consumer. We do not think it will work like that. The fact is that the bonus, as he and his noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh like to think of it, to foreign suppliers will be to some extent compensated because the supplies will not be made available as fast at a time of low prices and they will, conversely, be made available more freely at a time of high prices. The thing should therefore balance to some extent.
LORD STONHAM: I should be grateful if the noble Lord would explain that again. I am not clear what he meant.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The fact that there will be a mimimum import price means that the foreign exporter to this country will not be able to take advantage of our market as he has done in the past, and will not be able to drive down the internal prices. This will affect, we think, the general level of prices and also the general level of supplies. Then the noble Lord asked about the arrangements made with foreign suppliers regarding the phasing of supplies. Of course, in the agreement on import prices—the agreement in principle on import prices—the importance of phasing our market was comprehended as well, and this assurance I can give the noble Lord.
LORD WALSTON: I will not go over the arguments which we have had on Second Reading, and which my noble friend Lord Stonham has put forward to-day, though I think one can legitimately say at this stage that, so far as the actual mechanism conceived for bringing about this regulation of the markets is concerned, there is, to put it at its lowest, a certain amount of doubt about how it is going to work. It is also quite clear, I think, that, while the Government have made a bargain with foreign producers and suppliers of our food, getting them to restrict their imports to us (which in some ways we consider is a reasonable thing to do) they have at the same time given away a very strong bargaining position. While, if there were going to be con
680
tinuous gluts and low prices there might not be anything more than an academic argument against that, if we are, as some of us believe, entering on a period of shortages in certain commodities, the Government have let the consumers of this country in for far higher prices in years to come than we might otherwise have obtained by having something much more clear-cut in the way of long-term contracts for certain commodities.
There is only one other point that I should like to put to noble Lords, and it is with regard to the future. How is it envisaged that new arrangements are going to be made? Is this negotiation with our co-operators or non-cooperators of foreign providers to be an annual process? Are we to find every year, at the same time as the Price Review, that there has to be a renegotiation with the exporting countries? As the noble Lord himself said on Second Reading (I do not think I am misquoting him), the actual level of the import prices will depend to some extent upon the level of price we offer in the Price Review to our own farmers. In other words, we are going to have an annual haggling, not only between the Government and the National Farmers' Union, but between Government and foreign suppliers, too, which will be based, not on any sound economic criteria, but solely on the bargaining strength, the political requirements, and so on, between the two countries. It seems to us that this is how it is going to work out. There, I think, the Government are possibly even more vulnerable than on other counts.
It is curious for a Government of the political complexion which our present Government say they are, that they do not base the future negotiations, or even the present negotiations, on economic criteria. They do not say, "If in years to come you importing countries, cooperators"—as we might call Canada and Australia—"are able to provide us with wheat at a lower price, you therefore get a larger share of the market". It is not in any way tied up with the price at which they are prepared to offer us our food. It is based on something entirely different—on back-room negotiations into which all sorts of other factors come. Surely, it would have been far better if this

681
management of the market—and I repeat that we are in no way in disagreement with the management of the market—had been to some extent tied up with the actual prices at which over a long period, several years ahead, they would have been prepared to provide us with that food. Had that been the case, there would be a far stronger argument in favour of this whole concept than has been put forward in this new Bill. That, I believe, is one of the weakest parts of the whole theory—or lack of theory perhaps—which lies behind this Bill as it now stands.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I regret that I have given the noble Lord a completely wrong impression. The fact is that these are long-term policies. There is not the system of bargaining, still less yearly bargaining, which the noble Lord visualises. What has happened is that both sides—that is to say, our domestic agriculture and our suppliers—have agreed to play fair with each other. Of course, both will be watching to see how the scheme works. We believe—because the negotiators on both sides are composed of sensible men—that it will work well. But it is certainly a long-term policy, and it is not going to jib and change. This would certainly inhibit its success almost disastrously. This is to be seen in the light of the future, and of the two parties appreciating each other's difficulties and needs.
LORD WALSTON: May I interrupt to clarify this point? Let us leave out the British farmers for the moment. If the Danes are able, in the years to come, to provide us with butter at a lower price than the New Zealanders, does it mean that they will automatically, because their price is lower, get a higher share of the market? That is what I mean by using economic criteria. Or is the share of the market between the Danes and the New Zealanders to be haggled over year by year on a political basis, as opposed to an economic basis?
LORD ST. OSWALD: I do not think either. There will be no automatic changes in the sharing of the market, nor do I foresee haggling. The noble
682
Lord will remember that this is against the general background of the Kennedy Round that we look forward to. This will be a degree of international cooperation in trade, and a desire to assist rather than to compete, which will be to the benefit of both producers and consumers.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: I do not like to intervene, even for one moment, in this debate on a highly complicated measure. I appreciate fully the desire of the Minister and the noble Lord to try to provide what we all call a stable market for a variety of imported commodities. What I should like to know from the noble Lord is this. So far as I understand it, there is only one exporting Government with whom our Government could make any bargain, or in respect of whom they could know anything about the export or import price—. namely, Russia.
Looking further afield to the U.S.A., South America, Canada, New Zealand, or wherever we may import from, I should like to know whether the noble Lord has any idea with whom our Government will negotiate when trying to ascertain what the prospective import price is going to be. Will Her Majesty's Government's representatives try to negotiate with individual exporters from Canada or British importers from Canada, or will they negotiate with the Canadian Government? If I judge aright from the noble Lord's assent to that question, they are going to ascertain what are the prospective export prices on which to base Her Majesty's Government's decision only from the various Governments of exporting countries. Am I right in that assumption?
LORD ST. OSWALD: Yes. Negotiations are with Governments, and it is supposed that Governments of exporting countries will have their means of ensuring that co-operation works. Of course, there are, as the noble Lord well knows, such bodies as the Argentine Grain Board and the Australian and Canadian Wheat Boards, which will assist their Governments to carry out their undertakings in this co-operative system.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
PART II
FURTHER GRANTS FOR HORTICULTURAL IMPROVEMENTS
Extension of system of grants under Part 1 of Horticulture Act 1960
Grants for improving efficiency of small production businesses
2.—
(6) In this section "small horticultural production business" means, in relation to any scheme, a horticultural production business which is conducted on land not exceeding in extent such area as is specified in that behalf in the scheme, and which satisfies such other requirements (whether as to minimum area or otherwise) as may be so specified:
Provided that a horticultural production business shall not, so far as concerns a programme relating to the business submitted at any time for approval under a scheme, be treated as ceasing to be a small horticultural production business by reason only of any increase after that time in the area of the land on which the business is conducted.
5.12 p.m.
LORD WISE LORD WISE moved to add to subsection (6):
"Provided that notwithstanding the inability of an applicant to comply with one or more conditions of the scheme the Minister if satisfied that in all the circumstances it is reasonable so to do may approve the payment of a grant to that applicant, and".
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is not nearly so contentious or intricate as the one which we have been discussing throughout the afternoon. We now come to Part II of the Bill which deals with further grants for horticultural improvements. It is an extension of the system of grants under Part I of the Horticulture Act, 1960. The Amendment which I am proposing refers primarily to Clause 2(6), which deals with the small horticultural production business. The Amendment seeks to remove the restriction which is imposed upon the Minister and enables the Minister greater freedom of action. We do not propose that the Minister should have the sweeping powers which have already been referred to this afternoon, but that he should be able to deal in a common sense way with problems that do arise in the course of the working of the new scheme.
I am aware of schemes which may already be in existence under previous Acts, but I take it that under this new
684
clause a new scheme will come into operation after the passing of the Bill, and that the Minister, under the new scheme, will have certain new powers. I do not seek to restrict these powers by a hard and fast rule in accordance with what the scheme may lay down literally, rather than that the Minister may be able to adapt himself to the working of the scheme and make revision or alterations if necessary. Noble Lords will notice from subsection (2) of Clause 2 that certain powers are given to the Minister to modify or supplement a scheme with other provisions. He can also amend a scheme and, by a later subsection, has the power of variation and revocation, if necessary. It would seem, therefore, from this that the Minister will have certain powers, which possibly he does not have at the present time, to deal with the scheme according to what may arise in its operation.
This particular Amendment which I am proposing will be of great benefit, I hope, to the small business operator. It seeks to give to the Minister the right to bring into operation something different from what is actually in the scheme if he has been so advised by his advisers, such as the National Agriculture Advisory Service or anything else. He can amend the scheme so that he brings into the operation the small man who otherwise would not be within the scheme. I think that is a very laudable matter for the Minister to consider. It would enable a small horticultural producer to obtain advantages which otherwise would not be open to him if the powers of the Minister were strictly limited to the wording of the Bill. I think it is important that we should try to ensure to the small man a fair livelihood and confidence in his future; and those are words which were used only a few days ago by the Prime Minister, who also said that our purpose is to keep a healthy and virile population on our soil. We undoubtedly and heartily agree with that from this side of your Lordships' House, and I believe that what we are now proposing by our Amendment would seek to do that.
I have referred to previous schemes, and it is interesting to notice some figures which were stated, I think, in another place in regard to what happened up to

685
the end of last year in connection with those particular schemes. Up to the end of December there were 444 schemes dealt with by producers with between 4 and 7 acres; 1,242 schemes for acreages between 7 and 20; 1,974 schemes for acreages between 20 and 100; and 1,058 schemes for over 100 acres. This means that over 5,000 schemes have been dealt with during the period of the operation of that particular Act, but only one-seventh had been granted to the small occupier. I suggest, therefore, that, whatever the acreage or the conditions may be in a new scheme, we should, in all fairness to the small occupier, deal with him in a considerate manner and make it possible for him to have a fair livelihood and an enjoyable future. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 28, at end insert the said proviso. —(Lord Wise.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: As noble Lords will be aware, this Amendment was debated at considerable length in another place. I can well understand and sympathise with many of the points that have been made, but I cannot see how the Amendment can be accepted. The intention of the Amendment is clear: it would enable the appropriate Minister to give a grant, under Clause 2, to a business which, although it does not fulfil the minimum conditions, is in his opinion viable. Therefore, under the Bill it is not grantworthy, but in the Minister's opinion it is. This would mean giving Ministers power to break the rules of the scheme, a scheme which has been approved by Resolutions of both Houses. In other words, there would be in practice no conditions of eligibility for the scheme as a whole. Even though Parliament had laid down the conditions there would be no limitations, because Ministers would in fact be free to ignore them. This would be very hard to justify, and I am forced to conclude that in the interests of the growers themselves and the efficient operation of the scheme some minimum conditions must be laid down in the scheme itself, and once laid down in the scheme must be kept to.
We are not deciding here what those minimum conditions should be; that is a matter for the scheme which will in due course be laid before the House and debated. But we are certain that mini
686
mum conditions there must be. My right honourable friends are responsible to Parliament for administering a scheme creating rules that Parliament approves. It is right that those rules should be approved by both Houses, as the clause provides, and it is right that Ministers should be bound by them; otherwise, Ministers would be free to do as they pleased. The question at issue is whether minimum conditions laid down in the existing Horticulture Improvement Scheme are the right ones for the proposed business grants scheme. The horticulture scheme provides that the holding should consist of a minimum of four adjusted acres—and by that we mean that the area of glasshouses and mushroom and rhubarb sheds is multiplied by twenty and the area of other sorts of lights and watercress beds is multiplied by four. We fixed this minimum of four acres because we found that the vast majority of fundamentally economic businesses were above this size—not less than four adjusted acres—and I think that the experience of the scheme has shown this estimate was right. When we discussed the present proposals with the National Farmers' Union, they accepted that this was so.
Nevertheless, I can understand the concern of noble Lords who have in mind that some individual growers could reasonably claim to be viable even though the size of holding may be under the four acres limit. I am not arguing with the noble Lord in his submission that this could be so. Consequently, while it would be wrong to nullify Parliament's intentions by giving complete discretion to Ministers to ignore conditions laid down in the scheme, it is right we should do our best to find conditions which would bring those growers within the scheme whilst still excluding very many with less than four acres which would not be viable.
As I have indicated, anxiety was expressed in another place about the same issue. My honourable friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary undertook to consult with the National Farmers' Union to see whether any solution could be found. Those consultations started almost at once and they are continuing. I want to emphasise, however, that there are enormous difficulties. This is a problem which has been looked at very closely in the past and has proved to be

687
intractable. I am sure the noble Lord knows of the efforts which have been made, and the impossibility so far of overcoming the difficulties. But if a solution can be found—and we are trying very hard—without creating even greater problems, suitable provisions will be made in this section. I cannot agree with the noble Lord that his solution of enabling Ministers to overrule the provisions of the clause could be the right ones. We are, in fact, looking for another one.
LORD STONHAM: We find this reply extremely disappointing. The noble Lord has made very heavy weather of this point about the Minister, as it were, breaking the conditions. He swallowed the whale of Clause 1 and is now straining at this minnow. The noble Lord said that everyone has sympathy with the object of this Amendment, I am quite sure that is true. But sympathy will not help these chaps; they really want to qualify for the grant just as any other horticulturist or small farmer. We agree that there must be minimum conditions, but if the conditions are going to be hard and fast ones of acreage, minimum or maximum acreage, and there is going to be nothing else, obviously the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's assurance in another place is quite worthless, and that is why we are persisting with this Amendment.
Surely the problem is not as great as the noble Lord makes out. Why could we not have an assurance from him that it will not be merely acreage limitation? Why could it not be considered that if the Minister finds that the holding would be viable, even though the acreage is less than the minimum, then the grant could be available? Surely that is the object we all have in mind. The Amendment moved by my noble friend proposes only to give the Minister discretion if he is satisfied in all the circumstances that it is reasonable to do this; and surely if Parliament agrees to give the Minister power in this Bill, then this is acceptable. I hope the noble Lord will say that he will look at the matter again before Report stage, so that we can return to it in this form or in an amended form; otherwise, we will have to press it, because we feel so strongly about it.
VISCOUNT AMORY: It seems to me, with all possible respect, that it is the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who is making rather heavy weather. I really think that the terms of the actual Amendment must be unacceptable. To lay down in the Bill certain conditions and then in the same Bill give the Minister power to ignore those regulations seems to me to be something that this House could not consider for a moment. I should have thought the Minister had gone some way when he says that he has some sympathy with the spirit of the Amendment, and discussions are going on at the present time to see whether some of the points which have been raised can be met in the spirit of the Amendment. I think noble Lords who have spoken should be satisfied with what 1 should have considered a rather forthcoming attitude on the part of the Minister.
LORD WISE: I am extremely sorry that the noble Lord cannot accept this Amendment. He said that negotiations were still going on with the National Farmers' Union in regard to this matter. I wonder whether he can give the House any information as to the nature of those negotiations or what they are likely to produce. If so, we could hold it over until the Report stage. If that is not possible, and if he is not prepared to reconsider it. I must withdraw the Amendment and possibly raise it again later on.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SHEPHERD: I understood through the usual channels that we were to adjourn the Committee stage at 5.30 p.m. I wonder whether it would be convenient to my noble friend to postpone his next Amendment to the second day?
LORD ST. OSWALD: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

PHARMACY AND POISONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
5.31 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

DANGEROUS DRUGS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
BURGH POLICE (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

NUCLEAR PROPULSION OF SHIPS
5.32 p.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consent to set up an independent inquiry into the present situation with regard to nuclear propulsion of ships. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper and which seeks to get the consent of Her Majesty's Government to the holding of an independent inquiry into the question of nuclear propulsion for ships. On the last occasion when I had the privilege of addressing your Lordships on this subject I confined my remarks entirely to the propulsion of merchant ships, but in view of the importance of the general issue I have put down my Question to-day so as to cover ships which may be either merchant or naval.
The one thing that I want to stress all the way through this debate is that this country at the present time has fallen far behind other countries in the search for a nuclear reactor for these nautical purposes. I do not think there is any doubt about that, and that in the long run, unless something is done to overtake that position, this great shipbuilding and shipping nation in all things maritime will be in a most difficult position. That is my view. I want to say, unless I should perhaps forget it later on, that I am reinforced largely in these views by recent announcements. I see that the "Savannah", the American nuclear-powered ship, is going on, or has already started, a further and most important trial. I
690
have been taking note, too, of what is going on in other countries.
Perhaps it is rather a reactor upon me, but my noble friend Lord Attlee and I did our best to attack and to destroy the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to entering the Common Market. Nevertheless, in spite of our activities in that connection, I am glad to say that we continue to get the monthly publication of the Economic Community. The one I have here I received only two or three days ago, but it gives a picture of what I suppose is reckoned to be the legend of the first European nuclear ship. It gives details of how EURATOM, acting within the scope of the European Community, is engaged jointly in the production of a nuclear-powered merchant ship for trial. It is without much doubt that it is going to have a reactor which will be of a water pressure type—and no doubt it will cost a great deal to get it installed—from the United States of America. But, so far as I can gather, all the designers are being consulted with, from Italy and Holland as well as from Western Germany. In fact, a great joint effort is being made. The consultation concerns not only the reactor but also the design of the ship which they are to have as their first nuclear-powered merchant ship. They reckon that this ship will be afloat and operational for its trials in 1967. We are a long way away from being in a position to catch them up in that respect, if good results are obtained by this joint effort in Europe.
Then there is Japan. I rather gathered the other day from the noble Earl, who I understand is to reply again tonight, that Japan was not so certain as were the West Germans; but she is engaged in research, and so on, with regard to this matter. Judging from the way in which the Japanese have expanded their shipbuilding resources, their timed deliveries and their success with designs, I should have thought it was far more likely that I was right and that Japan is eager and active on these lines, rather than that Her Majesty's Government are right and that they are not keen on it.
Moreover, is it not perfectly obvious, when one thinks of the situation, that in the case of the United States of America, who have already spent a large sum—I know it has been expended —upon the experiment with the

691
"Savannah", they are now engaged upon a widened and, if I may use the term, a deepened project with regard to merchant ships? When I was speaking to your Lordships last I took the step of suggesting that there was so much to be reckoned up in the economies to be effected ultimately in the nuclear propulsion of merchant ships, once you got a successful reactor, that it would be most important in relation to what, in the end, you would achieve in your spate of international maritime business.
Let us look at the timing of this matter. In conversations I have had to-day I have had to be reminded of what I ought to have remembered—namely, that this increased interest in providing reactors in connection with the propulsion of merchant ships goes back not to the time of the first research grant by the Government of £3 million in 1961, but at least to 1956. There have been consultations, discussions and negotiations; experiments have been put out to industry to engage in, for some of which they have perhaps since been paid, but on many of which they have been out of pocket—and with all the costs of research incurred by the Atomic Energy staff itself. Those costs have been going on the whole time since 1956 to 1957. The work that was actually done by auxiliary research in industry up until 1960 to 1961 was, after some pressure, paid for in part by grants from the Atomic Energy Authority.
In relation to what has been brought to my notice since, I wonder what their position now is with regard to the work they did and the ideas they put forward. It seems that the answer given in another place and that given last week by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, in this House as to why information could not be given about a contract with Belgonucleaire, is that the Atomic Energy Authority is a commercial business. I do not understand at all how it can arise that private firms in this country who were brought into consultation to perform this, that or the other operation in relation to research should now be in the position that they have been paid up to a point, but not fully; and that anything which may be useful to the Atomic Energy Authority they have the power to control—or they can actually embody the discoveries of
692
the industry into future nuclear construction—and they can then claim the whole patent for it, however it is afterwards proceeded with, and it is subject to payment of royalties to the Authority themselves. This seems to be an extraordinary position.
With regard to one firm, Mitchell's, after the £3 million had been granted for research they were in the first instance left out from those firms who were asked to go on with the research. They were finally told that the Authority was sorry that they had been overlooked. Subsequently, having gone into the matter in detail, they submitted an actual proposal to quote a firm price to install a reactor in a ship, if the ship was provided, for £500,000. A good deal of scorn has been poured on this from certain directions, not least from the Atomic Energy Authority. But, even though some competitors might think this was a very low estimate to give, what is of concern is the manner in which information is sought by the Atomic Energy Authority, on the basis of its coming in as research work for the Authority—which is a national institution—in order for it possibly to be embodied into ultimate designs of the Authority, and then the firm concerned are charged royalties to the Authority upon their own work and their own ideas.
I told the noble Earl that since I last spoke in your Lordships' House on this matter that firm has received a letter about some information which was given to the Atomic Energy Authority. That information would never have been given to a body that was to be a competitor in business, having regard to the terms which they are now offered. They offered £2,000 for one small branch of information which was extracted without the full details being explained to the firm concerned. To be offered £2,000 for x information, which would involve them later on in paying royalties to the Atomic Energy Authority, presents an absolutely scandalous situation. If this is the sort of thing that is going on, it is about time there was an inquiry.
To look at the position in relation to the general progress of this reactor, what in fact has been the progress? The Atomic Energy Authority, who have an enormous staff from which to choose those to be engaged on such work, are

693
nevertheless no nearer a solution than they seem to have been when they started their first inquiries within the industry in 1956 or 1957. Of course people were thinking much more urgently about the situation than they had been on previous occasions. Perhaps the inquiries would not even have been started by the Atomic Energy Authority if it had not been for the international circumstances, for we had failed at Suez in a bad way. There was the danger to East and West trade, with talk of tankers of 65,000 tons with the speed and endurance to travel round the Cape. Everybody was seeking economies by getting, perhaps, a nuclear-powered ship eventually to solve their problems.
However, what emanated from it? What has been the net result? I have brought with me the Hansard for February 27, 1963, which contains the speech of the Minister for Science, the then Leader of the House. We have, of course, a certain regard for old colleagues, for this House is a very good-natured sort of Assembly. But to go back to the speech made in 1963, what do we find? First of all, that was the speech in which an attack was made on the standard of American education, and we were told that one was not likely to get a proper contribution to science in the United States until they reached our educational standard, and then we could have free trade, as it were, between the scientists in the two countries. That was bad enough, but let us examine what progress has emanated.
In that same speech the then noble Viscount the former Leader of this House, said he was quite sure that they were going along on the right lines by confining their research for the future to two proposals: one the integral boiler reactor and the other the Vulcain. The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, told us that we were in sight of a solution through the Vulcain operation. Lord Hailsham (as he then was) said in the course of that speech some exceedingly unkind things, which I am sure the present Leader of the House, Lord Carrington, as a former First Lord of the Admiralty, must resent. He did have a little knowledge, but I do not for a moment think the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, would ever have made
694
such an attack as the then Lord Hailsham made upon Captain Atkins.
Here was a most distinguished naval officer. He was distinguished, first of all, by right of his own service. He was a brilliant naval engineering student at his college, receiving a special Admiralty award for passing out in such a way; and all the way through his naval career (I need not weary your Lordships by detailing it) the same thing followed. He was a student, and reached the top position of an advanced course at Greenwich, again receiving a special award. He later became an instructor in all these matters at the Royal Naval College.
Then he served with distinction afloat. He took his earlier certificates, as watch-keeper and then main watch-keeper, as a lieutenant. He afterwards served in the "Hood" and the "Queen Elizabeth", and then as chief engineer in ships that did valiant work at sea—not least of which was the "Orion". And, as a result of the particular engineering work that was done, by himself and his assistants, he earned, first, a D.S.C. at Matapan and then the D.S.O. for extraordinary work done in extricating his ship from the almost impossible situation it was in on the way back from Crete. Since then, he has undergone a special course in nuclear work as applied to engineering ever since 1947–48. Then, early in 1963, he made the suggestion that the integral boiler reactor, as it was known then, was quite unsuitable for putting into a merchant ship and for withstanding all the changing storms and difficulties—different seaways, powers of the sea and so on. And he gave reasons for his view. For having revealed what his thoughts were (and perhaps it might be said, from one Service point of view, that he ought to have done it through another channel, but he felt so strongly about it that he revealed it), he was dismissed.
What is the fact to-day? Here are the confident assurances to this House, given by Lord Hailsham on February 27 last year, that of this he was confident. This was after the dismissal of Captain Atkins; this was after the attack in this House upon Captain Atkins. The noble Viscount was quite certain that they were right in going ahead with further examination of this integral boiler reactor, and quite certain that the other one, the Vulcain, was in the same posi-

695
tion. It is only recently that we are told from the opposite Benches that the I.B.R.'s are scrapped. Whatever work has been done on them has gone; it is wasted. Taking decent naval advice on the matter earlier would have secured that much more of the expenditure made would not have been necessary. I take that as being a vastly important matter.
Now I come to the question of cost in this matter. As I go back and research into the Commons Hansard (I have looked through a whole lot of extracts very carefully indeed) we seem to have had—I will not say a conspiracy, but a collusion somewhere, to keep all possible information away from Parliament. There has been an evasion of the real issue, right the way through 1962, and again in 1963. There was an evasion as recently as last week, when the noble Earl took the line that the public authority, the Atomic Energy Authority, is a commercial concern and that, for reasons of commerce and commercial relations, no particulars could be given to the representatives of the taxpayers in another place, if not to this House (because it has been twice refused in the other place), of what is going to be the cost. That is an extraordinary situation to arise, and it is about time that an independent inquiry was granted in this particular matter.
The offer still stands from the Mitchell Company, at any rate, to put this design of theirs into production and to install it in a merchant ship for £500,000. What has been the total cost (no doubt the noble Earl will be able to tell me this to-night: he should be able to) of research from 1956–57 up to this day? And I am sure the noble Earl will not forget to see that proper allowance is made for what has been paid, not only to outside research but to the staffs, laboratories and other departments under the direct control of the Atomic Energy Authority.
Here is an offer. Why is it not followed up? When it was taken before the panel of the Atomic Energy Authority that deals with these matters, the scorn passed upon it, to which I referred just now, led the firm to be answering questions as to whether they had properly costed it, and whether the price ought to be doubled or have a million added to it. Whereas I am told that the
696
firm is still quite confident, if the offer is properly considered, to go ahead with this proposal if the Government will finance that, as they have financed so much more without any adequate result at all at this time.
In the meantime, I want to press hard for an inquiry, and I want to press hard in that direction because it is essential if we are to keep up with other nations. I do not need to go over all the points that I made last week about the economies that might be effected in the future of our merchant shipping, and I can say that, in the case of the United States of America, at any rate, from conversations which it has been my privilege to enjoy to-day with a very skilled representative of the United States, their view is that by 1966 the next merchant nuclear-powered ship will be afloat, and that by 1967, with perhaps some subsidy for the first two or three years, there will be other such ships afloat. They are confident that within ten years a great new era will burst upon the merchant shipping world, just as it did in the case of the steam turbine, which was supposed to be not likely to make any success at all in the early 1900's but which, by 1910 and 1911, was leading the world in ship propulsion. The same thing will apply if we put our backs into this with regard to the British position in merchant shipping and its future for us in this country.
Now I want to say a word about the naval position. Of course, you could be very critical about the amounts estimated to be spent, and very critical about the general naval plan. But I want to say to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who has such modern and recent experience of the Admiralty, that I shall ask questions to-morrow, which I very much hope will be answered, in regard to nuclear propulsion in relation to the Royal Navy. I shall want to know, for example—and that is why I am giving notice to-night—what has been the whole cost up-to-date of the Dounreay proposition, from the time it was taken over from its original purposes and a part of it, at least, turned over to the Admiralty, and which has led practically to the building of a town and to all kinds of developments there. What has been the cost, and how far are we advanced in the matter? I want to give notice of that because I must

697
say, again, that I am very worried about the treatment of people who get into touch with the Government on these nuclear matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will note that it was announced only two or three weeks ago that, because of serious faults in materials, piping and the like, the whole of the project has been set back for months and months. A project which ought to have reached by 1962 what is called the critical stage before trial at sea is put back for redoing the work in 1964. I certainly do not believe—and this will be a matter for the First Lord of the Admiralty to give more details—that the submarine which is being developed at Dounreay will be available for sea this year nor perhaps even in 1965. Yet that project has been going on for years and years.
My Lords, there is something radically wrong with our research. We see this on every side. We have seen it with missiles, with aircraft, and with other things, until we seem to be practically engaged in gradually converting ourselves in these matters to becoming purchasers from the United States. This may, perhaps, bring us sometimes the satisfaction that we can manufacture some of their equipment on contract in this country; but we have this country now being put in that position. Yet the former Lord Hailsham was claiming here, in his speech of February 27, 1963, that our scientists were superior. That is what he said in effect; that they were going abroad to the United States because of our much better system of education here.
Instead, we are falling behind. This Government, after they lost Blue Streak and Skybolt, are buying American aircraft and engines. After thinking they would have at least some form of nuclear deterrent, they buy American—the whole lot, the hull and the rest. Now we have this setback in the arrangements for finding the reactor for the "Valiant". When do the Government think they are going to find a reactor for the "Warspite" and others? I want to know to-morrow, in the Defence debate, the exact cost, up to date, of this Dounreay project, and how soon we may expect the results of Government research and success in getting that engine into a British-built sub
698
marine. I have asked before for much of this information and I hope to get a great deal of it to-night. But what I can say is that it is quite certain that if the answers of the Government are not satisfactory, the only thing to do would be to take it up on the same basis, as we hope to do, and urgently, in another place.
6.5 p.m.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, I rise to support my noble Leader on this Unstarred Question to ask for the inquiry as stated on the Order Paper. The main reason I am speaking this evening is because of the reply given by the noble Earl to a supplementary question I asked. He said that he could not state the amount of money or the terms of the contact with Belgonucleaire with regard to the Vulcain reactors. This seems to me to have been a most unusual reply, because, as I reminded the noble Lord, when the question of the Bloodhound was raised in another place the information was coming with regard to costs. For many years I was chairman of the Post Office Contracts Committee; and I was fairly frequently called upon to answer questions in another place with regard to Post Office contracts. I fail to see why the same principle cannot be applied to this particular contract with Belgonucleaire. After all, there is nothing at all secret in these matters. As I said in a previous debate, it is quite possible to go out and buy the statistical appreciation of a nuclear reactor for merchant ships as prepared by certain firms in the United States of America.
It seems to me that there has been a deliberate dodging in answering questions by the Minister of Transport and the Minister for Science in another place, and in your Lordships' House. Quite frankly, I do not believe this is good enough. After all, if we are not to get this information which we consider to be vital and of national, public importance, it seems the only thing to do is to demand a public inquiry into the whole matter.
I come back to the question to which I was given no answer and which, if I am in order, I will repeat: What was the report of the Technical Assessment Committee to the Minister of Transport with regard to nuclear reactors for

699
merchant ships? This inquiry was set up some years ago. It was set up under Professor Diamond of Manchester University, and its report was to be made to the Padmore Committee. That Committee must have reported. I suggest that the report is on the Minister's table. If that is so, surely we can be given the appraisal as to whether we should have a water-cooled reactor or not. There has been no answer given to that question.
The reason why we are pressing for information with regard to the Vulcain reactor is that this has a water system, and we do know from American experience of their nuclear submarines, and from our own experience, that water reactors are very heavy and if placed in a merchant ship would not be a viable, economic proposition. Therefore, another form of reactor must be considered, and we come to the question of whether there are other forms of reactor. What we know about the Vulcain reactor is that it is a water-cooled reactor, and it is the opinion of technicians who should know that, so far as technology is concerned, we are at the end of the road in water-cooled reactors. It is impossible to make them lighter than they are.
Yet the Authority are proceeding in this contract with Belgonucleaire for the Vulcain reactor which is a water-cooled reactor. These are very sensible, fully-qualified men and they have access to technical and scientific information. Why are they proceeding with this water reactor? This is a question that needs to be answered. I think it is incumbent on the noble Earl who is to reply to answer it. It would also be interesting to know whether Her Majesty's Government have any information with regard to the progress in Holland, Italy and West Germany in their search for a viable reactor.
It is apparent that Western Germany has left that form of research and, I believe, are negotiating with Babcock and Wilcox for their type of reactor to be placed in their new merchant ships. The Germans, who these days are our rivals at sea, are considering having a nuclear-propelled merchant ship afloat in the very near future. We as the pre-eminent maritime nation, with a tradition of pioneering in these mat
700
ters, cannot be left out of this race. And it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to see that we are (to use a colloquialism) "put on the map."
The whole of this discussion arises not only from the delay and the equivocation of the two Ministers who have been responsible for this matter, but also because we want to know precisely what the position is today. Has it been decided, on the ground of cost or on the ground of inadequate knowledge, that we are not going to persist with a nuclear ship? Are we going to rule it out for the time being and wait to see whether another nation develops it, and then "cash in" on a more advanced type? That is a position I can understand. It is not the traditional approach of the British people to modern developments, but it is one which I am sure we can understand. Or is the whole scheme to be dropped? Are we not to have a nuclear-propelled ship in the new year? And if we are to have one—and this is the gravamen of my case—why are we persisting with this heavy-water reactor by Belgonucleaire? These are the questions we want answered. I agree with my noble Leader that if no reply is forthcoming, then it is incumbent upon us, as representatives of the public, to see that there is a public inquiry into the whole matter.
6.13 p.m.
LORD WALERAN: My Lords, may I speak for a few minutes, and strictly on the terms of the Question put by the noble Earl? Before I go any further, I must declare an interest—namely, that my company has in the past been and is at the moment interested in reactors, inasmuch as we have designed instrumentations for reactors that have already been built or are already commissioned, and for some that are coming along in the future. The noble Earl's question asked for an independent inquiry. I do not know what is in the mind of my noble friend Lord Bessborough, but it is extremely difficult to get an independent inquiry. I think that this must be true. It would be difficult to find men among our own people in this country who are acceptable to the U.K.A.E.A. This body is in an unenviable position. They are not only the design authority, but also judge and jury of other designs. It is a highly invidious position to be in. With

701
the best will in the world, I am sure they try to do all they can, with the greatest integrity. You must always try to help your own brainchild and if you can get a little more time for it to grow up, it is a natural thing to try to gain that time.
May I make a suggestion that may appeal to my noble friend and to the noble Earl opposite? It is that in the Central Electricity Generating Board we have an authority who have great experience of the whole field of reactors and who have at Berkeley Power Station their own research laboratory. I would suggest that the head of the Berkeley Research Laboratory, or somebody like him, would be a fit and proper person to chair such an inquiry.
6.15 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH): My Lords, I do not know whether I can say exactly that I am obliged to the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition for raising this Question this afternoon and for providing us with another opportunity for discussing the matter, but I greatly appreciate the sincere concern which he has in this matter and will do my best to reply to him.
As your Lordships know, the Government are awaiting the Report from the Working Group on Marine Reactor Research. The Group has carried out a careful assessment of six reactor types which might be available for the purpose we have in mind. Of the six types, your Lordships have been principally discussing two, the Vulcain and the Mitchell design. As I have told your Lordships more than once, work on the Vulcain is proceeding satisfactorily—I may say, very satisfactorily. I fear it would be wrong for me at this stage to express an opinion on the merits of the other designs. I am sorry that I cannot give the noble Earl any further information about them, but I know that it would be wrong for me to do so.
The Working Group, which is a most responsible one, includes representatives not only of the Atomic Energy Authority but also of the Ministry of Transport, the Office of the Minister for Science, the Admiralty, the Department of Scientific
702
and Industrial Research, the British Ship Research Association, Lloyd's Register of Shipping, the Chamber of Shipping and Professor Diamond of Manchester University, who has been chairman of the Technical Advisory Panel set up by the Working Group. The full composition of the Group, with the names of its members, is given in the note on page 16 of the A.E.A. Ninth Annual Report which came out last year. It is, I repeat, a fully representative body and its Report should be in the hands of the Government very soon. In these circumstances I can see no merit in the suggestion that an independent inquiry should be set up to report on the situation when a very full assessment is being prepared by the Working Group. The Government will need time, of course, to consider the Report. Very difficult problems are involved. But I can assure your Lordships that every effort will be made to reach a conclusion with no avoidable delay.
A point that I should particularly like to emphasise to your Lordships is that in my view it is wrong to think of the present position in terms of a race between various countries, in which the United Kingdom is alleged to be lagging behind. On the contrary, far from there being a race, there are at present only two nuclear ships in the world—apart from warships—the Russian icebreaker "Lenin" and the United States passenger cargo ship "Savannah", which the noble Earl has mentioned. These two ships, it seems to me, are certainly not in the same race. As I have already told your Lordships, the "Lenin" is a specialised ship which is operated without regard to economics. In this country we have no present requirement for a ship of this kind. Perhaps the Canadians can do with an icebreaker—I do not know; but that is their own affair. The American ship, as I have said, is not economic, and I have recently heard that the United States Administration—this is highly significant—have recently decided that they will not spend further funds at present on civil marine reactor research, apart, of course from winding up existing commitments. I do not have to repeat the significance of that.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, could the noble Earl give me a quotation of that?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I will do so. As a matter of fact, I made a similiar remark in one of our previous exchanges on this subject, and I have certainly seen it reported in the American Press.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I have just been talking to a very notable American industrialist who is highly interested in this subject. I was given the information—and I have given it to the House to-night on this basis—that the next nuclear propelled American ship will be operative in 1966; and with some help in administrative cost afterwards it can lead to a complete success economically.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I will certainly give the noble Earl chapter and verse of my own report of this. I think the information is good.
With regard to the Germans and the Japanese, I know that they have announced their decision to build a nuclear ship. I understand that the Germans will be doing so in conjunction with EURATOM, but in that case, without question, a foreign reactor will be installed. The Japanese have not yet made up their minds. In neither case, I understand, is there any expectation of economic operation. It seems, therefore, to be quite wrong to think in terms of a race between certain major Powers to build what the Evening Standard described in its leading article on March 9 as "exciting new fleets". Far from new fleets being built, the Americans have built only one ship, which is not economic, and there is no indication that the Germans, Japanese or indeed the Russians expect that their ships will be paying propositions.
It is therefore also wrong, in my view, to imagine that Her Majesty's Government have to come to a quick decision in this important matter: it is much more important that the decision when taken should be the right one, and it would be a great mistake to come to quick conclusions which turned out to be wrong. I feel, therefore, that we must wait and consider carefully the report of the Working Group before going into action.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I cannot speak
704
again later, and I should like to ask a question. Is not that the sort of line which ought to have been adopted over twelve months ago when the Minister for Science got up in this House and said he was quite sure it was right to go on with the idea? There was a lot of money spent on it after that, after they had been actually warned that they could not proceed with it.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I do not think I can go further into the whole problem of the I.B.R. I should perhaps say in that connection what I said the other day: that the decision to give up the I.B.R. was in fact unconnected (and I repeat the word "unconnected", because I think I was misreported) with the views of Captain Atkins.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I cannot let that go unchallenged. I must say at once that I am sure the noble Earl has been advised by the authorities that that is their view, but it certainly is not a true one. I know the record of this naval captain, and I know what is said, and I can attribute no other reason for abandoning the I.B.R. than the reason he has given. And there have been some others.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: It is not for me to comment further on what the noble Earl has said. What I have said is the truth, and I am going to stand by it.
The noble Earl reverted this afternoon to the question of publishing the agreement between the Atomic Energy Authority and Belgonucleaire, and he asked what financial contribution had already been made and what was the total commitment. As I informed your Lordships, the Atomic Energy Authority, in concluding an agreement with Belgonucleaire, were acting in a strictly commercial capacity. The object was the development of a reactor which would be both technically and economically successful. If this objective could be achieved there would be good prospects of successful commercial exploitation of the reactor system, and substantial royalty and licence income could accrue to the joint venture.
The Atomic Energy Authority, which, as your Lordships know, has a substantial trading income, is empowered to

705
act as a commercial organisation, and it would be severely handicapped in many of its transactions if it had to make public the terms of its commercial agreements. I do not think any of your Lordships would wish me to divulge this country's commercial secrets. This commercial status of the A.E.A. has, as I have said before, been recognised by the Public Accounts Committee, who accept certain commercial information on a confidential basis. Such information is not made public, however, and I cannot believe that the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition would wish to place the Authority under disabilities which do not affect private industry.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, what we want is that Parliament should not be placed under disability.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I do not want to suggest that the noble Earl is placing this House under a certain disability at this moment. The Authority's accounts are published annually together with a considerable amount of information about its research, development, production and trading activities. The Authority's Annual Report is in fact a mine of information on the full range of the Authority's activities. Information is denied in those areas, and only in those areas, where either military security is involved or where the Authority's commercial position needs to be safeguarded.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, with regard to the noble Earl's reference to the Atomic Energy Authority and private business, how does he account for the obvious disparity where Ferranti's were compelled to disclose the cost of the "Bloodhound"? That came through the Public Accounts Committee. What is the difference? Why are the Atomic Energy Authority in this privileged position in regard to something not affecting secrecy, as indeed "Bloodhound" could be argued to be?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: The answer is that this is an agreement with a foreign organisation, Belgonucleaire, and under the terms of the agreement it is not possible to publish the information. They are joint owners of the patents. I
706
certainly could not lend my hand to asking for publication.
The noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition asked last Tuesday, and again to-day, for certain figures regarding the cost of the Atomic Energy Authority's work on reactors for marine propulsion over the past years. Only a part, but by no means a large part of this expenditure has been on the Vulcain. The bulk of the expenditure has gone on design studies and experimental work covering the whole field of marine reactor research. The noble Earl also asked last Tuesday [OFFICIAL REPORT. Vol. 256 (No. 47), col. 324] whether the agreement with Belgonucleaire was on the basis of
"an order given for testing work to be done over there at cost plus profit".
May I repeat and re-emphasise that the United Kingdom's contribution to the joint programme has so far been in terms of work done and expenditure incurred in this country. When the time comes to test the fuel for this reactor system in the Belgian reactor, the B.R.3, the cost of these tests will be borne equally by the A.E.A. and Belgonucleaire. I cannot give details of these future charges as they are part of the commercial agreement which I have already mentioned.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: But did I not understand that the noble Earl was inclined to agree with me previously that in fact the Belgonucleaire section of the research which was going on would be likely to cost altogether £3½ million to £4 million?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I do not go back on the figures I have already given, but I think I really ought to bring this discussion to a conclusion.
Before concluding, I should like to refer to what the noble Lord said regarding a certain payment made by the A.E.A. to Mitchell's recently. I understand that this firm did some important work for the Technical Advisory Panel, and they subsequently asked that they should be paid for it. This was agreed, and they have been paid. They have been paid what they asked for and the payment has been, or will be, made by the A.E.A. I must protest that there is nothing in the least sinister about this. That is all there is to it.
EARL ALEXANDER of HILLSBOROUGH: I am sorry to keep interrupting the noble Earl, but it is essential to get this matter straight. On that basis we come back to the question of the Atomic Energy Authority being a commercial authority. What I say is that when you have people before you with a proposition about which you are asking questions, and you accept their proposals, you should say, "We should like to use your proposals; we will give you so much money for them"—not, "We shall charge you with royalties on anything you produce from them". I think that is scandalous, because if it were not done in the way I suggest, the firm would never give the information. It is completely unreasonable to adopt this line.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I do not think that over the Floor of this House we can very well go into the working of this Advisory Panel, but I will certainly look further into the remarks which the noble Earl has made to-night.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: And let us have the inquiry.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, referred to a comparison which he thought was an analogy with G.P.O. contracts. I think I have already explained the point here, that this is, in fact, a commercial agreement with an organisation in another country. The noble Lord, Lord Hobson, also asked, last Tuesday, whether the amount of money paid to Belgonucleaire would be published in the accounts of the A.E.A. My reply is that the Authority's accounts reflect all their activities, though commercial transactions are not,
708
of course, set out in detail. In regard to the building of nuclear-propelled ships as naval auxiliaries, this matter has not, of course, been within the terms of reference of the Working Group, but the Government certainly will not lose sight of this possibility.
The noble Lord, Lord Waleran, made some references to an independent inquiry, and he said that the A.E.A. should not be both judge and jury in this matter. I do not think it can be said that the A.E.A. is judge and jury in the matter, because the Working Group is an independent body composed of the very distinguished representatives whom I have mentioned, and who are named in the Report. However, I will certainly consider his suggestion and refer the matter to my right honourable friend.
My Lords, I have tried to be as reasonable as I can in this matter. I know that the noble Earl has this question very much at heart, and I have gone as far as I can to answer it; but I fear that that is all I can say for the present.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I can only say, "Thank you very much". I am not allowed to speak again. I will ask my own Party to raise the matter again in the other place.

BARONY OF SOUTHAMPTON
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That he had received from Charles FitzRoy, Esquire, an Instrument of Disclaimer of the Barony of Southampton, delivered in accordance with Section 1 of the Peerage Act, 1963.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before seven o'clock.