Sitting of 26 July 1965

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

  SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL (MEMORIALS)
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:—
  I have received your Address praying that I will direct that memorials be constructed to the memory of the late right honourable Sir Winston Churchill, K.G., and assuring me that you will make good the expense attending the same.
  I will gladly give directions for carrying your proposal into effect.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF LABOUR

    Bideford
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Labour how many men, women and juveniles from the Bideford development area received Government training in the period May 1964 to May 1965.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. R. J. Gunter): Thirteen persons from the Bideford development district attended training courses under the vocational training scheme in the period May 1964 to May 1965.
    Mr. Mills: I wonder whether the Minister realises that the unemployment figure in this area is still persisting fairly high and has shown no improvement this last month. Would he not agree that this is a very serious problem for our area and that training is the only answer?
    Mr. Gunter: I understand the position of the hon. Member, but I do not consider that this area has sufficient industry or population to support a centre of economic size. As the hon. Member knows, people from North Devon who go away from home for training are helped to find lodgings and are paid lodging allowance.

    Wages
    Mr. Fisherasked the Minister of Labour how many wage settlements have conformed to, and how many have exceeded, the 3½ per cent. basis laid down in the Government's White Paper since 27th May; and how many current wage claims exceed the 3½ per cent. basis.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ernest Thornton): As I have said before, it could be misleading to quote simple percentage figures either for wage claims or settlements and then to compare them with the 3 per cent. to 3½ per cent.

    3
    "norm". As the hon. Member knows, the "norm" indicates the average annual rate of increase of money incomes per head which is consistent with stability in the general level of prices. Moreover, the White Paper on Prices and Incomes Policy (Cmnd. 2639) provides for exceptional pay increases in certain defined circumstances.
    In addition, many wage claims do not specify an amount. They are rarely expressed as percentages, and the details of wages settlements given monthly in the Ministry of Labour Gazette show how complicated many of them are. However, it is the fact that many claims and settlements have been at an annual rate of more than 3½ per cent.
    Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman has given a long Answer but has not answered my Question. Is it not the fact that the figures confirm that the Government's attempt to achieve an incomes policy has so far failed, no doubt partly due to the baleful influence of the Minister of Technology? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Is it the Government's intention to pursue and persevere with this policy? If so, how do they propose to make it somewhat more effective in future?
    Mr. Thornton: This is a problem which the party opposite, when in Government, tried for thirteen years to resolve and failed completely. People will not expect us to resolve the problem in less than 13 months.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: What is the difficulty which prevents the Joint Parliamentary Secretary from answering my hon. Friend's Question? Cannot we be told how many have exceeded the 3½ per cent. and how many have been less? It is a simple arithmetical calculation. If we are to have all this cotton wool we shall never really get an incomes policy.
    Mr. Thornton: That is where the hon. Member makes a mistake. It is not easy, as his right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) will know. The complications of wages settlements are not all defined in percentage terms. They cover a wide range of settlements and it is extremely difficult to reduce them in all cases to percentage terms.
    Mr. Thin: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government's prices and
    4
    incomes policy is based on the voluntary principle and that so far, on the incomes side, the response of the trade unions has been at least as good as that of the manufacturers on prices?
    Mr. Thornton: I could certainly agree with that.
    Mr. Higgins: Are we to understand from the first part of the initial Answer by the Minister that the "norm" is something which is true by definition and that it is never to be used for comparisons of any kind whatsoever? Would the hon. Gentleman not agree with the point which has been made from this side three times that it is possible to calculate wage increases in percentage terms by a simple arithmetical process?
    Mr. Thornton: I repeat, it is not possible to do this. I did say in my Answer, however, that as far as we can calculate, most of these recent settlements have been above the "norm".

    Occupational Pension Schemes
    Mr. Deanasked the Minister of Labour how many employees are now covered by occupational pension schemes; and what steps he is taking to encourage the further spread of such schemes.
    Mr. Thornton: About 12 million employees are now in occupational pension schemes. The growth of these schemes is already encouraged by tax concessions.
    Mr. Dean: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that encouraging information. Can he say when the Committee which is considering the preservation of pension rights is likely to report to him and when we are likely to see action by the Government in this connection?
    Mr. Thornton: I could not give the date when the Committee will report, but, when it does, my right hon. Friend will give urgent attention to the matter.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the transferability of pension rights is perhaps one of the most important recommendations that has come from the National Economic Development Council? Would not he undertake to hurry this matter? It is of great concern to the 12 million people to whom he referred in his Answer.
    Mr. Thornton: My right hon. Friend took early action on this matter when he became Minister of Labour. We are doing all we can to get an early report and recommendations on this very complex issue.
    Mr. Godber: In the light of the last reply, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that it was not his right hon. Friend but I who set up the Committee to which he referred?
    Mr. Thornton: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon.

    Clydebank
    Mr. Benceasked the Minister of Labour how many young people below the age of 18 years are registered as unemployed in the Clydebank Employment Exchange.
    Mr. Gunter: On 12th July, 1965, 50 young persons were registered as unemployed in the Clydebank Youth Employment Office area.
    Mr. Bence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is causing grave concern in the area that we should have all these young people still unemployed and many of them unable to obtain apprenticeships? Would he do what he can to see that young men and women undergo suitable training courses so that we may augment the skilled labour force which we so badly need in Scotland?
    Mr. Gunter: I would point out to my hon. Friend that, of the 50 I mentioned in my Answer, 19 have just left school and we do not anticipate a great deal of trouble in placing them.

    Printing Industry (Apprenticeships)
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Minister of Labour what proposals have been made to him by the employers' organisations and trade unions in the printing industry on changes in the system of apprenticeship.
    Mr. Gunter: None, Sir, but I welcome the measures to increase the recruitment of apprentices recently agreed by the Joint Ma-power Committee set up by the printing industry.
    Mr. Hamling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the interests of productivity
    6
    and improving industry such changes in the apprentice schemes as are suggested in the Question are most necessary?
    Mr. Gunter: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: Would the Minister bear in mind that it is most disappointing that nothing has yet been done, although one understands that something is being attempted to be done? Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the printing industry is about the worst in the country for restrictive practices—[HON. MEMBERS: "Lawyers."]—and that something is urgently needed to be done? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not talk about lawyers in his answer.
    Mr. Gunter: First of all, it was not I who mentioned lawyers. Secondly, there is no one in this House who offers me as much temptation as the hon. Gentleman does to make indiscreet statements as Minister of Labour.

    Trainees
    Mr. Benceasked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to facilitate the placing in employment of men trained at Government training centres.
    Mr. Gunter: There is a placing service at each Government training centre which works closely with the placing service of the employment exchanges. About 95 per cent. of trainees who complete courses obtain suitable employment.
    Mr. Bence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is very difficult in an area such as Clydebank and Dumbarton where we have a Government training centre in which men have been trained for skilled jobs in industry when at the same time there are large redundancies of skilled men? Is he aware that this very weekend an English company is recruiting labour in Clydebank for England while trained men in Dumbarton cannot get a job?
    Mr. Gunter: I am sure that Scotland still needs skilled men. The Dumbarton training centre was opened only in September, 1964, but of the six trainees who have completed the course five have been placed in employment.
    Mr. Godber: Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the situation, of which he will be aware, where

    7
    there has been difficulty in the past in placing people after training? Is he getting co-operation now from the people concerned?
    Mr. Gunter: I am getting more and more co-operation.
    Mr. Hamling: A good Minister.

    WEEKLY RATES OF TRAINING ALLOWANCES

    Payable from the beginning of the first full pay week commencing on or after 12th December, 1963 to persons undergoing courses of vocational training, excludign trainees in sheltered workshops

    Age and domestic responsibilities

    Living at home (see Note 1)

    Living away from home in accommodation arranged by or on behalf of the Ministry (see Notes 1 and 2)

    Men

    Women

    Men

    Women

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    Aged 21 and over:

    (1) Without wife or dependants

    …

    …

    8

    0

    0

    6

    7

    6

    5

    10

    0

    4

    7

    6

    (2) Maintaining one dependent child under 16

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    8

    15

    0

    7

    2

    6

    7

    10

    0

    6

    7

    6

    (3) Maintaining two or more dependent children under 16

    …

    …

    …

    9

    0

    0

    7

    7

    6

    7

    15

    0

    6

    12

    6

    (4) With wife or maintaining adult dependant(s)

    …

    …

    …

    …

    9

    0

    0

    7

    7

    6

    7

    15

    0

    6

    12

    6

    (5) With wife (or maintaining adult dependant(s)) and maintaining one dependent child under 16

    …

    …

    …

    9

    15

    0

    8

    2

    6

    8

    10

    0

    7

    7

    6

    (6) With wife (or maintaining adult dependants)) and maintaining two or more dependent children under 16

    …

    10

    0

    0

    8

    7

    6

    8

    15

    0

    7

    12

    6

    II. Under age 21:

    (1) Without wife or dependants:

    Aged 20

    …

    …

    …

    …

    6

    10

    0

    5

    0

    0

    4

    10

    0

    3

    5

    0

    Aged 19

    …

    …

    …

    …

    6

    0

    0

    4

    5

    0

    4

    0

    0

    2

    15

    0

    Aged 18

    …

    …

    …

    …

    5

    0

    0

    4

    0

    0

    3

    5

    0

    2

    10

    0

    Aged 17

    …

    …

    …

    …

    4

    0

    0

    3

    5

    0

    2

    15

    0

    2

    5

    0

    Aged 16

    …

    …

    …

    …

    3

    5

    0

    3

    0

    0

    2

    5

    0

    2

    0

    0

    Aged 15

    …

    …

    …

    …

    2

    15

    0

    2

    10

    0

    2

    0

    0

    1

    15

    0

    (2) With wife or dependants

    …

    …

    Married men under 21 years of age, and other persons iged 19 or 20, who maintain dependants are paid illowances appropriate to persons aged 21 and over. Persons under 19 (other than married men) who have dependants should ask at their nearest Employment Exchange for details of the allowances payable.

    NOTE 1—Where mid-day meals are provided, 2s. 0d. a day towards the cost is deducted from the rates shown above.

    NOTE 2—

    (1) At residential establishments, lodging and full board is provided free of charge, but 12s. 0d. a week towards the cost of mid-day meals is deducted from the allowances shown above.

    (2) Persons placed in accommodation arranged by or on behalf of the Ministry receive an additional allowance to meet the cost of lodging and all meals (except mid-day meals from Monday to Saturday).

    Retail Book Trade
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Minister of Labour what report he has received from his wages inspectors on wages being paid in the retail book trade in the West End of London; and how many prosecutions have taken place as a result.
    Mr. Thornton: Reports of wages inspection in the retail bookselling and
    Mr. Murrayasked the Minister of Labour what grants are being paid to trainees in Government training centres.
    Mr. Gunter: As the reply consists of a table of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the information:
    stationery trade in London postal districts W.1, W.C.1 and W.C.2 have been analysed for the years 1963, 1964 and up to 22nd June, 1965. During this time there were 51 inspections and the wages of 302 workers were examined. One employee was found to have been paid less than the statutory minimum weekly remuneration prescribed in the Wages Regulation Order and he was paid arrears

    9
    of £19 5s. 0d. There were no prosecutions in this trade for offences under the Wages Councils Act, 1959.
    Mr. Hamling: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the recent labour dispute in this trade in the West End disturbing allegations were made by representatives of the workers about the wages paid by this firm? Would my hon. Friend look at this matter again?
    Mr. Thornton: I think that the matter is covered in an answer to a later Question.

    Agriculture (Training Board)
    Mr. Bostonasked the Minister of Labour what progress he is making in setting up a training board for the agricultural industry.
    Mr. Gunter: Exploratory discussions with the industry about a training board for agriculture have begun and I hope that good progress will have been made by the end of the year.
    Mr. Boston: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the outcome of these discussions is eagerly awaited? Can he give any further indication of when the board will be set up?
    Mr. Gunter: I could not give any firm date, but it will be appreciated that many organisations will have to be consulted, including those in industries which are, so to speak, on the fringe of the agricultural industry. At this stage I can only say that I hope that we shall have made very good progress with our discussions with the industry by the end of the year.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: While welcoming what the right hon. Gentleman has said, may I ask whether he will press on with this matter so that the existing training schemes, such as the Y.M.C.A's. "British Boys for British Farms" scheme, can co-operate fully with the plans of the training board?
    Mr. Gunter: Yes, Sir.

    Liverpool
    Mr. Hefferasked the Minister of Labour what steps he will take to ensure employment for those who may be made redundant by the contraction of a branch of Plessey's in Liverpool; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gunter: I understand from the firm that they are planning a major reorganisation scheme but that this will not lead to any redundancy in Liverpool.
    Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the automation group in question is an expanding section and is to be concentrated in the Poole district? Is he also aware that the management are arguing that female labour is more available in Poole than on Merseyside, and yet on Merseyside there are over 3,000 unemployed women as against 300 in the Poole area? Will my right hon. Friend also confer with other Ministries concerned to ensure that this type of industry is not only kept on Merseyside but expanded on Merseyside, which is a development area?
    Mr. Gunter: I understand that my hon. Friend has been in communication with another Ministry on this point. I am aware of the proposal to transfer a certain section to Poole, but I understand that it is the intention of the company further to develop telecommunications manufacture principally in Liverpool and Beeston.
    Mr. Godber: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that the contraction of employment is not confined to Plessey or to Liverpool? Would he care to make a statement?
    Mr. Gunter: Not on this Question.

    London Airport (Strike)
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Minister of Labour what has been the result of his inquiry into the unofficial strike at London Airport at Whitsun; and whether he will make a statement concerning this dispute.
    Mr. Gunter: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated in his reply to the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. John Harvey) on 15th June, I am collecting information about strikes which have affected the travelling public at holiday periods. This will include information about the unofficial strike by employees of British European Airways at Whitsun.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Has the Minister seen the Motion on the Order Paper signed by many of my hon. Friends and myself

    11
    about making collective agreements enforceable at law? Does not he agree that this is the only practical way of dealing with unofficial strikes, and, if he does, will he say when he envisages legislation to that end being introduced?
    Mr. Gunter: I have been looking at resolutions and letters of that character for a very long time. I am still not yet in a position to see clearly how the course suggested by the hon. Gentleman could be the proper one at this time. It is not as simple as he imagines to have legislation in this field without further guiding lights.
    Mr. Godber: The Minister will agree—he has said so himself—that this was a very serious matter. We discussed it on another occasion only last week and I shall not go over that again, but will he use every endeavour to discourage unofficial strikes in every way possible, including legislation if he can see his way to it?
    Mr. Gunter: Of course, I shall do everything I can to stop unofficial strikes, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is not as easy as all that. On the question of legislation, I can only say, as I said during the passage of the Trade Disputes Bill and on other occasions, that I wish that hon. Members opposite would realise that one can have all the legislation one likes but one will not remove the "old Adam" out of men. We have got to have certain guiding lights about the relationships between the worker, his employer and the State before we can make a move in that direction.

    Training Facilities, Fife
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Minister of Labour what plans he has for increasing training and re-training in Fife and the east of Scotland generally.
    Mr. Gunter: As I announced on 22nd June in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), a further expansion of Government training centres has been authorised, which includes a new centre at Edinburgh. There will also be some expansion of the existing centre at Dunfermline.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since that announcement a
    12
    further statement has been made by the Minister of Power which means an accelerated closure of pits in central West Fife, in particular? Is he satisfied that the announcement to which he refers takes account of that situation, in view of a likelihood of an increased number of miners wanting retraining?
    Mr. Gunter: As my hon. Friend knows, we have been looking very carefully at the position as it was outlined by the Minister of Power. All I can tell him at this stage is that we are watching it carefully, particularly in the light of training needs.

    Foyle's Bookshop (Dispute)
    Mr William Hamiltonasked the Minister of Labour if he will make a further statement on the dispute at Foyle's bookshop; and whether he is satisfied that the firm is conforming with all statutory provisions concerning wages and working conditions.
    Mr. Thornton: With the help of the regional industrial relations officer, this dispute has now been settled and normal working was resumed on 12th July. I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood) on 14th June that I would arrange for inquiries about compliance with the provisions of the appropriate Wages Councils Order, and I will do this now that the dispute is settled. I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on 14th June about the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that there will be considerable satisfaction in all parts of the House that this dispute has been settled in the manner he has described, but will he take the matter a little further? Will he give an undertaking that there will be an investigation of the entire retail book trade, particularly in the West End of London, in respect of which suggestions were made to us at a meeting upstairs that there were conspiratorial tendencies among the owners of these retail shops to reduce wages and jeopardise working conditions generally?
    Mr. Thornton: As regards the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, the evidence we have in the Department does not confirm what he

    13
    says. Inquiries and examinations which have been made over the past two and a half years reveal a state of affairs in relation to West End booksellers in which the rate of errors, underpayments and non-compliance is only about one-tenth of the rate in the United Kingdom as a whole.

    Wages Councils
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Minister of Labour, in view of the recommendation in paragraph 41 of the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, Command Paper No. 2695, that his Department should give consideration to the absurdity of retaining an increasingly redundant Wages Council, if he will take the steps to abolish the Council; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Thornton: Under the Wages Councils Act, 1959, a wages council may be abolished only when adequate alternative wage regulating machinery exists which is substantially representative of the two sides of the industry concerned. I welcome the recent moves by the Road Haulage Association and the trade unions concerned to set up voluntary wage negotiating machinery for the road haulage industry, and I hope that sufficient progress will soon be made in the operation and development of this machinery to enable the parties concerned to make a joint application under Section 5 of the Act for the Road Haulage Wages Council to be abolished.
    Sir C. Osborne: As the Report states specifically that the continued existence of the Wages Council may possibly militate against the full development of the new machinery, ought not the old machinery to be removed; and, if the old-fashioned wages councils are a hindrance to welcome new developments, ought not the same thing to be encouraged in other industries as well?
    Mr. Thornton: My right hon. Friend is well seized of this position and he is taking a very active interest in the matter.

    Road Haulage Vehicles (Speed Limit)
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Minister of Labour, in view of the condemnation by the National Board for Prices and Incomes in its Report, Command Paper
    14
    No. 2695, of the restrictive practice in the road haulage industry in refusing to operate lorries at 40 miles per hour, and by keeping to the old speed limit of 30 miles per hour, if he will confer with the union leaders with a view to ending this practice; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Thornton: My right hon. Friend proposes to discuss the recommendation of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on this subject with the trade unions concerned at an early date. He has already had informal consultations with this in mind.
    Sir C. Osborne: In paragraph 47 of its recent Report, the Board stated that the average speed of the motor vehicles involved is only 21/23 m.p.h., which is an under-use of the existing machinery, and that the recommendation that the maximum speed should be allowed to go to 40 m.p.h. was resisted by the trade union leaders because they had not been consulted. In the national interest and the interests of efficiency generally, will the hon. Gentleman consult the trade union leaders to see that this go-slow on their part is discontinued?
    Mr. Thornton: It would be unwise to ignore the safety factor here. My right hon. Friend is well aware of all the implications and he is anxious that progress should be made as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Snow: Is my hon. Friend aware that this side of the House at least will welcome his observation that the safety factor must be borne in mind? Is he aware that the high speeding of lorries is a cause of grave concern on certain of the cross-country routes in the Midlands and the factor of great importance to be borne in mind is the safety of such elements of the population as school children who have to use the roads? Will he note that on some country roads the danger can be very great?
    Mr. Ronald Bell: Will the hon. Gentleman realise that an average speed of 22 m.p.h. for freight vehicles compares very badly with most other countries of the world and that the safety consideration is one primarily for the Minister of Transport, who, as he has not revoked it, presumably agrees with the earlier order? Will he, therefore, persuade his right hon.

    15
    Friend the Minister of Labour to take some energetic measures in this very obvious case?
    Mr. Thornton: My right hon. Friend is aware of all these considerations and, as I said in my original Answer, he has already had some consultations.
    Mr. Bagier: Is my hon. Friend aware that average speeds are very misleading, particularly in this country, and that those of us who travel on the main trunk routes have very seldom seen lorries travelling at anything like 22 m.p.h.? Will he agree that, on those occasions when lorries do hesitate to travel at more than 30 m.p.h., the reason may be the mechanical standard of some of the vehicles involved?
    Mr. Thornton: These are all factors which must be borne in mind.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will the hon. Gentleman say, from his personal observation, whether he has ever seen a lorry travelling at under 40 m.p.h.? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to use his wit and ridicule on the trade unions to bring them into line on this very practical point?
    Sir C. Osborne: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies, I shall, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, seek an early opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Equal Pay
    Mr. Martenasked the Minister of Labour whether he has now received the report of the official committee on equal pay; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Thornton: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend hopes to receive the Report shortly.
    Mr. Marten: When replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) on 14th June, the hon. Gentleman said that he would receive the report within two or three weeks. Can he say what is holding it up? Is it the cost of equal pay?
    Mr. Thornton: I must apologise to the hon. Member and to the House—it is my second apology today—for unconsciously misleading hon. Members on 14th June when, as the hon. Member said, I stated
    16
    that we expected the report in two or three weeks' time. I corrected this in the Adjournment debate on 23rd June.
    Mr. Marten: When does the hon. Member expect the report now?
    Mr. Thornton: We expect it very soon indeed. I had better avoid saying "in a week or two weeks".
    Dr. Summerskill: Will my hon. Friend say whether "very soon" is in terms of weeks or months?
    Mr. Thornton: I think I can venture to say that it is in terms of weeks.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: When the report comes, will the hon. Member bear in mind that there is a distinction between equal pay for equal work and the rate for the job?

    Labour Sub-contractors
    Mrs. Shirley Williamsasked the Minister of Labour how many workers in the engineering industry are supplied under agreements with labour-only subcontractors; and what proportion they are of the total number employed in the industry.
    Mr. Gunter: I regret that the information is not available.
    Mrs. Williams: My right hon. Friend will be aware that this practice is growing in areas which are short of skilled labour. Will he give an assurance that he will resist any attempt to undermine his own efforts for better redundancy payments, industrial training reforms and retraining as a result of the growth of this system in the engineering industry?
    Mr. Gunter: I will certainly give that assurance, but I would point out to my hon. Friend that some of the problems which arise are really best left for examination by both sides of industry.
    Mrs. Shirley Williamsasked the Minister or Labour how many workers in the building industry are supplied under agreements with labour-only sub-contractors; and what proportion they are of the total employed in this industry.
    Mr. Gunter: I regret that the information is not available.
    Mrs. Williams: Would my right hon. Friend agree that this system is an alternative system to the attempt to decasualise the building trade, and that with the growth of industrialised methods it is important to begin thinking and moving forward on this front?
    Mr. Gunter: Yes, indeed, Sir. I am glad to note that the national joint council, representing both sides of industry, has had a look at this.
    Mr. Heffer: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this is a very dangerous and pernicious practice and that if it is allowed to expand to any great degree it will undermine the negotiated agreements in the building industry? Will he give an assurance that he will use his influence as far as possible with both sides of the building industry to ensure that the practice is cut out altogether?
    Mr. Gunter: I have already indicated that we are watching the dangerous implications of the system very closely. However, I would rather that it were left at present to see what conclusions are arrived at by both sides of industry. They are now negotiating on this matter.

    Health and Local Government Employees (Factories Acts)
    Mr. Lomasasked the Minister of Labour when he intends to introduce legislation to extend the Factories Acts to include Health Service and local government employees.
    Mr. Thornton: A large number of these employees are already covered either by the Factories Act or the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act. My right hon. Friend has no plans at present for extending this legislation to other employees in these fields.
    Mr. Lomas: Is my hon. Friend aware that that is a most disappointing reply inasmuch as in the Health Service, for example, laundry workers are covered but those in boiler-houses are not, and people who serve meals to the staff are covered, while those who serve them to the patients are not? Ought not people

    GRAVESEND EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE AND YOUTH EMPLOYMENT OFFICE

    Men

    Boys

    Women

    Girls

    Total

    Unemployed on 12th July, 1965

    …

    …

    136

    21

    52

    19

    228

    Vacancies notified but unfilled on 7th July, 1965

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    207

    92

    96

    50

    445

    in public service to be entitled to the same degree of welfare, protection and safety measures as those in the public sector? Will he give an assurance that he will look at the matter again and introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity?
    Mr. Thornton: If my hon. Friend will let me have particulars of any group or groups that he has in mind, we will certainly look into the matter.
    Mr. Hamling: Can my hon. Friend tell us how many persons who work in the Palace of Westminster are covered by the Factories Acts?
    Mr. Thornton: Not without notice.
    Mr. Speaker: I do not think that any of them are Health Service or local authority employees.

    Gravesend
    Mr. Murrayasked the Minister of Labour how many young people between the ages of 15 and 18 years, and men and women over the age of 18 years, respectively, were registered as unemployed in the area of the Gravesend Employment Exchange; and how many vacancies for such workers have been notified to the exchange, in the latest week for which figures are available.
    Mr. Gunter: As the answer consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Murray: As in the past there have been high unemployment figures, particularly for young people, in the Gravesend area, if that position arises again will my right hon. Friend consider consulting his colleagues in the Government with a view to getting more light industry into the area?
    Mr. Gunter: If such a position should arise, I would certainly do what I am asked to do.
    Sir C. Osborne: Does the right hon. Gentleman envisage the high unemployment which is feared in Gravesend spreading to the rest of the country by the end of the year?
    Mr. Gunter: No, Sir.
    Following is the information:

    Holidays
    Mr. Freesonasked the Minister of Labour what number and percentage of insured workers in the United Kingdom have three weeks' paid holiday per year; and what steps he proposes to take to increase this number.
    Mr. Thornton: About 735,000, or 5 per cent. of the manual workers covered by collective agreements or statutory wages regulation orders, have three weeks' paid annual holiday and a further 440,000, or about 3 per cent., will have three weeks at a future date under the terms of some recent settlements. In addition, there are a number of agreements and statutory orders under which the annual holiday entitlement varies be-between two and three weeks, according to length of continuous service. It is not possible to estimate the number of manual workers entitled to three weeks' annual holiday under these arrangements, but 2,440,000 are employed in the industries and services covered.
    In the public sector the majority of non-manual workers receive a basic three weeks or are entitled to three weeks after a period of continuous service. The annual holiday provisions for non-manual workers in the private sector are in many cases not determined by collective agreement.
    Holidays with pay are normally dealt with by collective bargaining and my right hon. Friend does not think that any action on his part is called for.
    Mr. Freeson: Would not my hon. Friend agree that, even on the basis of the figures which he has quoted, we are well behind the majority of West European countries and possibly some other territories as well in this matter? Is he aware that most of these countries have a minimum of three weeks' holiday paid and that we very much need to extend this kind of holiday service, if one likes to call it that, throughout the majority of our workers?
    Mr. Thornton: My hon. Friend is probably right in saying that we are behind West European countries on the question of paid holidays. However, in recent years unions and employers' organisations have been tending to give
    20
    more attention to fringe benefits, which include longer holidays.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will the hon. Gentleman use his influence to try to persuade workers in the Coventry area not to jump the gun over holidays, to stick to the arrangements, which have been properly drawn up between the unions and the employers' associations, laying down the holiday period, and not take an extra week ahead of the holiday period?
    Mr. Thornton: I think that point is covered by a later Question.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the agricultural industry, because of the last Price Review in particular, is in no position to give extra holidays? Nevertheless, there is a strong case for agricultural workers having three weeks' holiday. It is an industry which has never gone on strike but has always done a great job for the country. Will the hon. Gentleman look into this?
    Mr. Thornton: I note the hon. Gentleman's remarks, while not necessarily agreeing with his opinion.

    British Railways (Southern Region Dispute)
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a special investigation of the industrial dispute involved in unofficial stoppages and working to rule on the Southern Region of British Railways.
    Mr. Gunter: I hope that the majority decision yesterday of delegates from branches of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen will lead to an immediate resumption of normal working and that following the national conference of the Society fixed for 10th August, it will be possible to reach a settlement by negotiation. This is clearly the right course and preferable to an investigation, but I shall keep a close watch on the position and not hesitate to take any action which I may consider appropriate.
    Mr. Goodhart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although some of the motormen have changed their minds, a great many of the trains are still running extremely late? Does he recall that

    21
    he said that the Government would not stand aside if the unofficial action continued? What specific action does he intend to take if it does continue?
    Mr. Gunter: I thought my answer conveyed it. Hon. Members should not use exaggerated language, there was, in fact, an improvement this morning. Delays at Cannon Street and Charing Cross were down to 8 minutes. However, that is not good enough. I hope that the meeting this morning between the unions and the motormen will reinforce the decision taken yesterday. I shall watch the position.
    Mr. Deedesasked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on the industrial dispute which has led to working to rule on the Southern Region of British Railways.
    Mr. Gunter: At a meeting of delegates from branches of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen yesterday it was decided by a majority vote to advise their members to end the "non-co-operation" which has been disrupting services in recent weeks. I hope, therefore, that there will be an immediate resumption of normal working by all concerned, but I shall, of course, keep a very close watch on the situation.
    Mr. Deedes: While sharing the right hon. Gentleman's hopes, which, I think, will be reflected on both sides of the House, may I ask whether he does not think that the circumstances which gave rise to the dispute and which have caused such widespread disruption and inconvenience should now be looked at further? Has he in mind any sort of further inquiry which might bring a little light to bear on the circumstances which have led to this situation?
    Mr. Gunter: Not at this stage. I hope that when negotiations are resumed following the conference of 10th August—and I will say a prayer that they start on the 11th or 12th—we will be able to look more clearly at the position.
    Mr. Godber: I am sure that we are all glad, in all parts of the House, at the improvement which has taken place since we debated this matter last week. May I, however, ask the right hon. Gentleman how he sees the position developing? He stated in his last reply that he hopes to
    22
    get further negotiations started. He will, I know, agree that that will be the start of further problems which may arise in getting a settlement. Will he use his good offices in every way to get the matter cleared up satisfactorily?
    Mr. Gunter: The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct. When the negotiations reopen—I hope immediately after 10th August—there will then be highlighted many of the deep complications that lie not only behind the row with the locomotive men but filter through to many of the other workers.

    Works Councils (Representatives)
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Labour if he will seek powers to enable him to encourage companies to have trade union officials and shop stewards elected to works council instead of representatives elected on the shop floor.
    Mr. Thornton: I think the form of representation on works councils is best settled within individual firms in the light of their particular circumstances.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is the Parliamentary Secretary watching the experiment at Samuel Fax & Co., a branch of the United Steel Companies, by which shop stewards for the first time and now trade union officials are being brought on, so that questions of productivity, mechanisation and redeployment of labour can be discussed within the works? Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is a helpful approach and should, perhaps, be encouraged throughout industry?
    Mr. Thornton: I can assure the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend is watching this procedure with close interest.

    Motor Industry (Holidays)
    Mr. Godberasked the Minister of Labour whether he will take steps to discuss with the motor manufacturers and unions concerned the breakdown in arrangements to co-ordinate holiday dates throughout the motor industry, with a view to preventing the repetition in another year of such a break in production as has recently occurred in some factories in the Coventry area.
    Mr. Gunter: I am informed that the ballot to determine the holiday period to be taken by employees in the motor industry next year has already taken place, and that on this occasion employees in Coventry firms have taken part. The industry is confident that the difficulties which have occurred this year will not be repeated in 1966.
    Mr. Godber: While we are glad to learn this, do I understand from the Minister's reply that on the previous occasion the Coventry employers were not even consulted? It seems to have been an extraordinary situation if that was so. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that all those concerned will be fully aware on this occasion so that there is no misunderstanding, which probably was the cause of the trouble before?
    Mr. Gunter: Yes, indeed; I understand that steps will be taken in that direction. In reply to the first part of the question, the position seems to be a little confused. I formed the impression that the employers were consulted but that they abstained.

    Cost-of-Living Index (Press Notices)
    Mr. Godberasked the Minister of Labour if he will take steps to ensure that Press releases on the monthly cost-of-living index give a clear indication of the main causes of changes that take place.
    Mr. Gunter: When the index moves by 0·2 or more points, the Press notice mentions the more important changes. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, fuller details of changes are published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette. I think the information given is adequate, but if the right hon. Gentleman has any particular suggestions I will consider them.
    Mr. Godber: The reason why I put down the Question was because the May Press announcement said that the rise in the index during the month was due to increases in a number of items but specified potatoes in particular and said that this increase was partly offset by a reduction in the price of eggs. When, however, the June issue of the Ministry of Labour Gazette was published, it showed that apparently the major item in the rise in May was a 1·8 per cent. rise in services, which related almost entirely to postal
    24
    charges. It therefore seems that this should have been included originally.
    Mr. Gunter: I have noted that point.
    Mr. Lipton: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that for old-age pensioners and other sections of the population the monthly fluctuations in the cost of living index do not mean a thing, because it includes all sorts of items in which people are not interested? For this reason, should not the factors which go to make up the cost of living index be completely revised?
    Mr. Gunter: That is a larger question which does not arise out of this one.

    Disabled Workers
    Mr. Alan Williamsasked the Minister of Labour what proportion of the labour force of those factories covered by the quota system is made up of disabled workers.
    Mr. Gunter: An inquiry carried out in June 1964 revealed that within approximately 65,000 firms to which the quota provisions of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, applied, 2·75 per cent. of the total labour force within those firms were, or had been while in their current employment, registered as disabled.
    Mr. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side will regard a figure of 2·7 per cent. as very disappointing? Does he realise that this percentage has fallen significantly during recent years because many firms are failing to meet their obligations? In seeking a solution of the problem, will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of varying the quota according to the type of work?
    Mr. Gunter: That point has already been considered. We must, however, apply quite a lot of common sense in dealing with this question. Because of the nature of the work that they offer, many firms are unable to reach a level of 3 per cent. Thousands of firms exceed this figure and are generous in this matter. We are, however, watching the position carefully.
    Dame Joan Vickers: Can the Minister say how many disabled people are unemployed?
    Mr. Gunter: I have the figure with me but I cannot lay my hand on it at the moment.

    Scottish Motor Industry (Strikes)
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Minister of Labour how many working hours have been lost, in 1964 and this year to date, respectively, by men on strike in the Scottish motor industry; and how many hours have been lost by men laid off in consequence of these strikes.
    Mr. Thornton: The numbers of days lost in 1964 and in the first six months of 1965 by workers directly involved in strikes in the Scottish motor industry were about 9,000 and about 11,000, respectively. The corresponding figures for workers made idle at the establishments where the stoppages occurred who were not themselves parties to the dispute were about 7,000 and about 30,000 days, respectively. Precise information about the number of days lost at other establishments is not available, but it is estimated that about 12,000 days were lost in the first six months of 1965. The loss of time in 1964 at other establishments is thought to be negligible.
    Mr. Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that while these figures are no worse than for the motor industry generally, the figures for the first six months of 1965 in Scotland are rather alarming? Will the hon. Gentleman examine the figures and try to find the causes of this disruption, particularly in view of the importance of the motor industry to Scotland's development?
    Mr. Thornton: Unofficial strikes of this kind are an indication of a poor standard of industrial relations. We hope that those relations will be improved. The services of our Department are always readily available to help to secure improvement in labour relations.

    GREAT BRITAIN

    1960

    1961

    1962

    1963

    1964

    Boys

    …

    …

    …

    103,004

    114,729

    121,517

    101,708

    114,492

    Girls

    …

    …

    …

    19,951

    20,547

    21,243

    15,361

    16,863

    SCOTLAND

    Boys

    …

    …

    …

    10,733

    12,606

    14,077

    12,344

    13,805

    Girls

    …

    …

    …

    1,910

    1,997

    1,779

    1,291

    1,406

    Mr. Ronald Bell: To what does the Parliamentary Secretary ascribe the fact that they seem to be worse this year than last year?
    Mr. Thornton: I would point out to the hon. Member that they were worse again in 1962.
    Mr. Bence: While deprecating un-official strikes or any loss of man hours because of industrial friction, may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware that there is far more co-operation between workers and managements in the motor industry and much more co-operative endeavour than friction which leads to industrial disputes?
    Mr. Thornton: That is one thing that we should keep in mind. The absence of strikes is not news but strikes are headline news.
    Mr. John Page: Can the Minister explain what he means by "unofficial strikes"?

    Scotland
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Minister of Labour if he will give the numbers of young people who entered apprenticeships for skilled trades in each of the last five years; and what are the figures in respect of Scotland.
    Mr. Gunter: As the reply consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Taylor: Does the Minister recall that on 9th November he said that he would look at the question of apprenticeships in shipbuilding, where the ratio of apprentices to journeymen had declined from a figure of one to 3·8 in 1954 to one to almost five journeymen in 1964? Has the right hon. Gentleman looked at the position, and what has he seen?
    Mr. Gunter: Yes.
    Following is the information:

    TSR2 Workers
    Sir A. V. Harveyasked the Minister of Labour what steps are now being taken to retain former workers on the TSR2 in this country who are now considering going overseas.
    Mr. Gunter: None, Sir, except by maintaining a high level of employment here and by providing all possible help through the employment exchange service for those who need help in finding other work.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that in the past eight months the House has been frequently told that men becoming redundant from the TSR2 project would go to jobs helping exports? How does he square that with the fact that it is now reliably reported that between 200 and 300 of these men are to join the Atlas Aircraft Corporation in the Union of South Africa, where they will be completely lost to this country?
    Mr. Gunter: I have heard of these Press reports, but they have not been confirmed and we cannot get confirmation of them. We have had reports of the activities of American firms here, one of them using a British agent in Weybridge pubs. The agent, who was offering £200 a week, was subsequently disowned by his own firm. We have no means of stopping men who want to go abroad, but our information—and I cannot attach any figures to it—is that not many are going.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the alarmist talk of widespread redundancy among certain aircraft firms, few of the men are unemployed and that other aircraft firms are advertising for labour? Will he bear that in mind when what I hope are drastic armament cuts are proposed in the future?
    Mr. Ronald Bell: Has the right hon. Gentleman any figure of the number of these aircraft workers he expects to go abroad? Would he not agree that it would be lamentable if we were to import aircraft and export aircraft workers?
    Mr. Gunter: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that we are living in a
    28
    free society. I have no authority to go around checking on what people do.

    Industrial Training (Further Education)
    Mr. Dan Jonesasked the Minister of Labour what guidance he has given to industrial training boards about the recommendations they are required to make regarding further education courses to be associated with the industrial training of young people.
    Mr. Gunter: In the light of the advice which I have received from the Central Training Council about the importance of closely integrating further education and training, and bearing in mind the importance of increasing more rapidly the number of boys and girls receiving further education in association with industrial training, I have decided that I shall normally approve the proposals of industrial training boards only if they make it a condition of grants to employers that day release or the equivalent is provided for young people in occupations requireing a substantial amount of training.
    Mr. Jones: Would my right hon. Friend enlarge on that reply, for which I thank him, by telling the House what he means by "substantial"? Will he say a little more about what is meant by "young people"?
    Mr. Gunter: Generally speaking, I shall regard periods of training lasting a year or more as substantial, but there may be occasions when release for further education is desirable even though the training lasts less than a year. We have not defined nor sought to define "young person". It was suggested that we should lay down the age of 18, but we do not consider that to be wise, because there may be older people in need of this education.
    Mr. Godber: The right hon. Gentleman has made an important statement about the development of the industrial training boards. I agree with him about this emphasis. Has he already taken decisions of this sort in connection with those boards which are already operating?
    Mr. Gunter: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Boston: Will these welcome recommendations apply to the agriculture training board when it is set up? Can my right hon Friend confirm that he will take into account the very special needs of agriculture?
    Mr. Gunter: I think that they will apply to that board, but I would rather see it set up before we start analysing it.
    Mr. Lubbock: What estimate has been made of the additional places which will be required at technical colleges as a result of these decisions? Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted his right hon. Friend tie Secretary of State for Education and Science to make sure that those places will be available this autumn?
    Mr. Gunter: I would like notice of the first question, because I do not have that information.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Social Security (Review)
    Lord Balnielasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether, in the review of social security, he has yet reached the stage of inviting major organisations concerned in the various aspects of social security to submit evidence; and which organisations he has so far invited.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Houghton): The answer to the first part of the Question is "Not yet" and to the second part "None, so far".
    Lord Balniel: I find it rather difficult to understand the reason for this delay. Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be of value to seek the advice of these voluntary bodies, which have a wealth of experience in social welfare, and that they should be invited to give their evidence at a formative stage of policy-making and not when the right hon. Gentleman has reached a cut-and-dried solution? Can he give an assurance that he will soon invite their views?
    Mr. Houghton: The noble Lord uses the word "delay". He does not know what he is talking about. We have been at this job nine months, whereas the previous Administration had years and did not make a start. In the meantime, we
    30
    have improved social benefits by the largest amount ever for nine million people and we have been carrying on our review of the social services. The noble Lord keeps asking the same question and getting the same answer.
    Mr. Mendelson: Will my right hon. Friend make certain that the range of industrial diseases, particularly in the mining industry, will be covered by the comprehensive review to make certain that the developing diseases which are traced particularly to this industry are now taken into account in the compensation arrangements for people suffering from industrial diseases?
    Mr. Houghton: To such a friendly question I can give a friendly reply. We are considering all aspects in this major review, but it takes a long time when having to start from the very beginning to look at social security in the Britain of tomorrow in a big way.
    Mr. Gower: Would not the right hon. Gentleman concede that investigations into these matters might be better informed if at an early stage he took account of the views of all these major organisations?
    Mr. Houghton: I am not aware that right hon. and hon. Gentleman opposite took counsel with other bodies when they were reviewing the scheme in 1959. Our first job is to formulate our own ideas and then consult the bodies concerned and work out an acceptable scheme.
    Mr. Lubbock: Whether or not the right hon. Gentleman has made any official approaches to these organisations, can he not confirm that many approaches have been made to him on the instigation of these bodies themselves, even without his asking for representations to be made?
    Mr. Houghton: A number of bodies have very kindly sent letters and representations of different kinds. I have not yet sought evidence or opinions, but we are taking into account all those which we receive. The offer has been open for months and months and those who wish to take advantage of it will be very welcome.

    Social Workers
    Lord Balnielasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the outcome of his discussions with other

    31
    Ministers concerning the desirability of appointing an inter-disciplinary council to co-ordinate research and recruiting, training and deployment of social workers.
    Mr. Houghton: I passed the noble Lord's suggestion to the Ministers concerned and, as a result, an inter-Departmental study of the recruitment, training and deployment of social workers is being made.
    Lord Balniel: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his first courteous answer this afternoon. Would he not agree that this is a small reform which could be of great value to social workers and to families in need, and would he consider initiating this reform before the result of his long-range review on social security?
    Mr. Houghton: I can give the assurance that this matter is being considered quite separately from the long-range review of social security. The official committee will report to me and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall consider these matters as soon as we can.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that we want less talk of review and more action?
    Dame Joan Vickers: While the right hon. Gentleman is considering the shortage of social workers, would he consider the establishment of an all-purpose social worker on the lines of those in France?
    Mr. Houghton: We are considering all aspects of this matter. I think that we had better await the report of the inter-Departmental Committee before we can study the classification of social workers, the types of training and recruitment available and generally consider what form of social worker we shall require in social security for the next ten years.
    Mr. Lipton: Will my right hon. Friend now prepare himself for the possibility that he will be asked by hon. Members opposite every week from now until the publication of the report when the report is to be presented?
    Mr. Houghton: I understand that we are to have a little respite before then.

    Local Authority, Welfare Services
    Mr. Wallaceasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will issue a White Paper dealing with the co-ordination of local authority, health, welfare and children's services.
    Mr. Houghton: No, Sir.
    Mr. Wallace: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the considerable overlapping of local authority welfare services and of the urgent need for co-ordination in order to avoid wasted effort?
    Mr. Houghton: Yes, Sir. We are fully aware of the problems connected with the organisation of social services at local level and we are considering these matters, but I cannot make a further statement today.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will my right hon. Friend look at a further problem, which is the way in which general practitioners, who sometimes claim to be the leaders of the health team, should be co-ordinated, although under executive councils, with social welfare and health workers of local authorities?
    Mr. Houghton: Yes, Sir. I seem to have a lot of co-ordination on my hands. I shall include the suggestion of my hon. Friend.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Bowden): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.
Progress on the Patents (Employees' Inventions) Bill [Lords] on Tuesday next will be, instead of the stages already announced, the resumed debate on the Second Reading.
I should add that in addition to the business already announced for Thursday next there will be the Lords Amendments to the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Bill and Motions on the European Launcher Development and Space Research Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Orders.

ANGLO-MALDIVIAN AGREEMENT
The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Arthur Bottomley): I am glad to be able to inform the House that the negotiations with the Maldivian

33
Government have been successfully concluded and that the new Anglo-Maldivian Agreement was signed in Colombo this morning.
By this Agreement, which confirms that the Maldive Islands are a fully independent State, Britain ceases to be responsible for the defence of the Maldive Islands and for the conduct of their political relations with other countries and with international organisations.
The Agreement confirms Britain's unrestricted and exclusive use of those facilities in Addu Atoll which were accorded under the 1960 Agreement for the purposes of Commonwealth defence.
I have arranged for copies of this new Agreement to be placed in the Library and I shall in due course be presenting the text to Parliament for publication as a White Paper.
I am confident that this satisfactory outcome of the negotiations will mark the beginning of a new and happy era in Anglo-Maldivian relations.
Mr. Sandys: May I say how glad I am that the right hon. Gentleman has at last brought these tedious negotiations, which I started about 18 months ago, to a successful conclusion? May I ask him to confirm that his statement does mean that, under the new Agreement, Britain will enjoy all the rights and facilities which she now enjoys under the present Agreement?
Mr. Bottomley: I am very happy to have been able to draw to a conclusion these negotiations, which were started by the right hon. Gentleman. In reply to his question, I can answer "Yes, Sir."
Sir A. V. Harvey: Can the Minister say who will be responsible for the local people in these islands?
Mr. Bottomley: The Maldivian Government.

NEW MEMBER SWORN
William Francis Martin Maddan, esquire, for Hove.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mrs. Harriet Slater.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [24TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [DR. HORACE KING in the Chair]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1965–66 CLASS III

    VOTE 2. SCOTTISH HOME AND HEALTH DEPARTMENT
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a sum, not exceeding £1,815,000, be granted to Her Majesty's to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Secretary of State for Scotland and of the Scottish Home and Health Department; for a grant to the Legal Aid (Scotland) Fund; for expenses in connection with fire, probation and sundry other services; and for grants in aid. [£1,162,000 has been voted on account.]

  SCOTLAND (INDUSTRY AND EMPLOYMENT)
  3.38 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Noble: I beg to move, That Class III, Vote 2 (Scottish Home and Health Department), be reduced by £8,000.
  This debate takes place once a year and is the annual stocktaking of Scotland's trading and industrial position. This year, once again, we have not yet had the Report prepared by the Secretary of State, "Development and Growth in Scotland," which gives us all the necessary statistics about the up-to-date position in our country. I can remember that last year the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State made a good deal of play about the dilatoriness of the Scottish Office in providing this basic information for our debate. I hope that this year he is not intending to criticise himself.
  I am bound to admit that I find it a good deal more difficult to realise why the White Paper has not been before the House of Commons, because from all the evidence that we have seen the picture in Scotland has not been one of great "busy-ness". I am only hoping that

  35
  the Secretary of State has not decided not to issue one, on the ground that this year it might be a nil report. Today, therefore, the Committee has to rely very largely on the White Paper Cmnd 2440, which is the most up-to-date information we have. Last year, this Paper reported that investments, employment, unemployment, production, were all going in the right direction. In the same section there was a warning which was that there could be no relaxation of effort to maintain the momentum that was being achieved.
  What is the picture today? We have no reports on which to base our arguments. We have very few statistics and only a modicum of the usual, and I say usual advisedly, complacent speeches from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. It is significant that already in mid-summer, unemployment in the United Kingdom has turned up upwards. I do not want to make too much of this with regard to Scotland, because as the Secretary of State, and I am sure the President of the Board of Trade, know very well, our school-leaving date is earlier in Scotland.
  It is normal for the July figures in Scotland to be misleading, at least for comparative purposes. But it is, none the less, disappointing that the rest of the United Kingdom should be affected in this way, because over many years we have observed that when England starts to do badly Scotland is apt to catch up, and take much longer to recover.
  At the weekend—and I have only the authority of the Press and the B.B.C. for this—the Prime Minister referred to a statement which was to be made in the House, perhaps this week, which would indicate that public spending would have to be cut. What I want to impress on the Secretary of State is that it will be his task to see that if cuts in public expenditure have to be made they will not apply to Scotland. I hope that he will be able to give the Committee that assurance this afternoon. Last year, civil public investment in Scotland showed an increase of 20 per cent. Probably all hon. Members will agree that that increase was fully justified, because of the particularly difficult position in which Scotland had been for some time.
  The Committee does not need me to remind it that last year, week by week
  36
  and month by month, new announcements of projects of one sort and another were made, bringing heartening and comforting news to the people of Scotland. Some came from industry. However much they sometimes want to, Governments cannot claim full credit for this. Nevertheless, many of those projects concerned matters over which the Government have complete control—housing, roads, technical colleges, teacher training establishments, universities, schemes for retraining men who are to become redundant, great bridges, new power stations, and water works—all this great panoply of public expenditure which is required to sustain and increase the flood of new inquiries and developments that are weekly coming to Scotland.
  For the first time for many years confidence had really been established that the Government meant business, and industrialists at home—in both Scotland and England—and from overseas were all joining in the queue, so that whatever else the present Secretary of State inherited in October last year it was not a picture of a declining Scotland.
  Before I consider some of the interesting points which came from last year's debate I want to ask the Secretary of State a few questions on specific matters, because we have had no up-to-date information from his Department. We had arranged for the Erskine Bridge to be our next priority big river crossing in Scotland. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can tell us today when it will start, and what he considers the cost will be. Then there is the problem of the hydro-electric schemes. The report on these was in St. Andrew's House in the week immediately before the election. The Secretary of State has told the House that it was a very long and extremely complicated Report. I take his word for it, because I did not see it.
  The time has come when the right hon. Gentleman must make up his mind whether to say "Yes" or "No" to the Report. We are left imagining that it must have come down against these schemes as a whole, because if it had come down in favour of them the Secretary of State is on record on many occasions in the past as having pleaded that they should go on. But whether

  37
  the Report was in favour or against, the Committee deserves an answer from the right hon. Gentleman.
  Then there was the problem of the new town growth area round Irvine. This, also, was announced as a project to be discussed with the local authorities concerned well before the last election. It is important for that area to know where it stands and what the plans are. There are three other items on which I should like some information, since they involve construction. I refer to housing, school and technical college building, and hospital plans. The Secretary of State has told us that he was aiming at a total of 40,000 completed houses this year. We should be given the most up-to-date estimate whether this target will be achieved.
  We have heard a great deal about the necessity for more school and technical college building, and for extra hospitals, We should be told what the Secretaary of State's thinking is about these matters today. Then—almost as important—there is the question of training centres. A certain number of places were to be provided by the middle of this year. My recollection is that the number was about 1,700. I hope that the Secretary of State or the President of the Board of Trade will be able to tell us whether these places are now ready and are being fully used.
  Lastly, in this category, can the Secretary of State tell the Committee what information he has from Lord Robens about the likely run-down in the coal industry? Year after year one of Scotland's consistent problems has been not only getting new jobs to come to Scotland, but anticipating the position in the industries which were naturally running down. Over and over again we have been told that reviews were being carried out to see what should be done. We have had no answers this year, and it is right that we should have some today, because we have been patient and have not tried to harry the Secretary of State during a period when he has obviously had to do a certain amount of rethinking.
  As we have no statistical paper on which to judge the various points that we should make I have made an analysis of the debate that we had at the same
  38
  time last year, and of the speeches made by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. You will recall, Dr. King, that that debate was on 21st July, and was the last of the Supply debates. At that time, after 13 years in opposition, the Labour Party was poised and ready to take over the Government. It is, therefore, right that at this moment in history the Committee should study with special care its ideas.
  Before coming to the main argument I want to deal with two rather personal matters of which the Secretary of State was particularly pleased to make fun. The first concerned my visit to America and the second my visit to Moscow. The right hon. Gentleman will remember his splendid phrase, "Have kilt, will travel." My point of view—and it may well be shared by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, including the President of the Board of Trade—is that anything which will help to create the right atmosphere for bringing new jobs to Scotland is an advantage.
  Although I would certainly not claim that by going to America I was able automatically to wave a wand and bring a lot of new jobs to Scotland from that country, I was able to meet a good many big American industrialists and talk to them on a person-to-person basis. All that I would wish to put on record is the fact that the Scottish Council subsequently said that that had been its best single industrial visit. The Secretary of State was very fond of quoting the Scottish Council when and if it was critical of the Tory Administration. Perhaps he will accept it from the Council that this was a most successful visit.
  May I say a word about the Moscow visit? A few years ago I was Chairman of the Livestock Export Group. At that time, our total export of livestock to the world outside Britain was about £250,000. This past year it was raised to nearly three times that figure, and this year, with luck, it should be over £1 million. A great deal of that extra has come from countries behind the Iron Curtain who were represented at the exhibition. Looking back, I feel that though the Secretary of State thought that this was just a gimmick, it did a certain amount of good—I will not claim more than that—and that it certainly helped in the basic factor

  39
  of letting industry, agricultural or manufacturing industry, know that politicians are sufficiently interested in its export activities to take the trouble to go to see for themselves the problems which arise.
  May I come to the points made during last year's debate? The Secretary of State opened it. I hope that I am not spoiling his speech, for he may intend to say the same thing today all over again. He may remember that the first thing which he deeply regretted was that the Board of Trade was taking part in the debate. I seem to assume that the Board of Trade will take part in our debate today. He referred to what would happen to proud Edward. There is a proud Douglas, too, and we shall see what may happen to him. He made a Bannockburn reference.
  The second point was to stress very strongly—and in this he was supported by the right hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Tom Fraser) who was the shadow Minister of Power—that the Government must see that the experimental station at Dounreay was continued and, if possible, extended. When I left office a decision was expected about the future of Dounreay about March or April this year. We have heard nothing whatever about it either from the right hon. Member for Hamilton or from the Secretary of State.
  The right hon. Member said that he would shut Dr. Beeching's casebook. One or two of my hon. Friends have found that Dr. Beeching's casebook is not being shut and that lines in their constituency which the Labour candidate during the Election promised would be kept open have in fact been shut down.
  The right hon. Member moved to air transport and talked to us about the importance of a flight to Dundee and improvements at Prestwick. We have had no signs of either of those. The Secretary of State can tell us at any time he likes about his new flight to Dundee.
  The next point, which was picked up by several right hon. and hon. Members, was the absolute necessity of getting research and experimental units to Scotland. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) made this point, as did the hon. Member
  40
  for West Fife (Mr. William Hamilton), who seems to have left the Chamber.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is not the right hon. Gentleman impressed by the fact that the Government have concentrated all the computer-aided design research and numerical control research at East Kilbride as a major policy decision?
  Mr. Noble: I am always impressed. Indeed, month by month I have become more and more amazed that the Government do nothing for Scotland. I certainly do not want to take a small bit of credit away from them, but I will come to that intervention in a moment.
  As far as I know, there is one major research which is footloose, to use the industrial expression, and that is called the Natural Environmental Research Council. This Council is not yet in existence. Anybody who has had any experience of trying to move scientific bodies from one place to another knows the considerable difficulties which attend this process. But when there is a completely new council to be set up, when it is one which in almost any unbiased view could work very well from Scotland, which has a considerable number of natural resources which could be developed then it is a body which I should have thought the Secretary of State might have been able to induce in the right direction.
  The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who was not lucky enough to make a speech, made an intervention during the debate and said that any action which the Government could possibly take to bring a new motor industry to Scotland would be of the very greatest benefit. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would agree with him about that. I am not blaming the Government for not having picked up a motor industry or for not having started a motor industry of their own, as perhaps the hon. Member for Fife, West would have liked them to do, but all the actions which the Government have taken over the last six months have been basically against the motor industry—increased petrol duty, increased licences, and the credit squeeze. It is no particular wonder that the motor industry is not as expansion minded at the moment as it was at this time last year.

  41
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), who I do not see at the moment, asked me or my right hon. Friend why it was that the Queenslie Industrial Estate, which he said had been offered by Glasgow Corporation to the Government for nothing, had been turned down. My right hon. Friend pointed out to him that it had not been offered for nothing, but had been offered for sale. But whether it was for nothing or for sale, the Glasgow Corporation is broadly of the same political view as the present Secretary of State, and I should have thought that if this were a good venture he would have proceeded with it.
  I hope that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will not feel that I am doing him an injustice in including some of the excellent points which he made as though it were an Opposition speech. He voted for the Opposition last time and he asked a few questions, too. He asked for a United Nations agency to be settled in Scotland. He asked for a differential tax system to be introduced which would bring extra business and more industrialists to Scotland because of the advantages of going there. Neither of these has happened. He asked that better internal air routes should be considered. We listen to him in this respect very carefully because we know how dependent he is in his far-flung constituency on air communications. As far as I know, the Highland Transport Board was preparing a report on all the internal air services in Scotland. I hope that it has been given to the Secretary of State, but, if so, he has failed to tell us anything whatever about it.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked that at least the headquarters of the Forestry Commission should be moved to Scotland. I have heard that in another place one of the Joint Under-Secretaries stated that this was a decision taken by the last Government, but he is not entirely accurate because the decision was that a small part of the headquarters and the English directorate should go to Basingstoke. Since then the whole organisation of the Forestry Commission has been changed. The power of direction seems to have been brought considerably more down to Whitehall than it was in the past, although we do not know all about it.
  The Secretary of State might persuade his colleagues to move the entire head-
  42
  quarters for this operation to somewhere in Scotland. That would mean that the bulk of the timber growing areas would be nearby and the members of the Commission would know more about what goes on in Scotland. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked for a Scottish Office with more power and—[Interruption.]
  The Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench must behave himself.
  Mr. Noble: Thank you for protecting me, Dr. King.
  The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked the Committee on that occasion for a Scottish Office with more power and more guts. I wonder whether he thinks that he has got that.
  Next in the debate the hon. Member for Fife, West, who is always very active in such debates and often has independent and interesting ideas to adduce—
  Mr. J. Grimond: Before the right hon. Gentleman moves on to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), do I understand from what he is saying that he is adopting the points which I made last year? If so, why did he not succeed in putting them into practice when he was in office?
  Mr. Noble: That is a perfectly fair point. A great many things were not done when I was in office—and that goes for my predecessors—but if one compares what we did in our last two years of office with what has been done in the past year one can see why I am prepared to stand such a comparison any day.
  I come to the hon. Member for Fife, West, and he gets the oscar. Out of all the speeches and ideas that were produced in the last debate by hon. Gentlemen opposite, he was the only one who made a suggestion which the Government have implemented. He deserves the congratulations of the Committee for his foresight, because he said that office building in London should be controlled. That has been done and, his suggestion having been accepted, we must congratulate him. However, he has not been so successful in some of his other major suggestions—apart from those I mentioned earlier—because he also suggested that we needed publicly-owned

  43
  drug companies in Scotland. Such enterprises may be coming along, but they have not been established yet.
  As always, we had an interesting debating speech from the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) and today we pay particular attention to what he said because he is now an Under-Secretary of State. He is the head of the Scottish Development Department, which, more than any other Department in St. Andrew's House, is responsible for some of the things which we are discussing today. What was it that he wanted last year? The first things he wanted were more advance factories, and—
  Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order. Is not this part, indeed, the whole, of the right hon. Gentleman's speech out of order? Is it not merely a recital of what was said in a previous debate? Surely the right hon. Gentleman should, on an occasion like this, say something original instead of merely repeating what was said in a previous debate?
  The Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not understood the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, which is quite in order.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Further to that point of order. Bearing in mind the doctrine of not indulging in tedious repetition in Parliament, Dr. King, is not the right hon. Gentleman merely reciting what was said in a previous debate instead of contributing something constructive, which is needed on an occasion such as this?
  The Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman is himself tediously repeating his point of order, on which I have already ruled that nothing in the right hon. Gentleman's speech is out of order so far.
  Mr. Noble: I am grateful to you, Dr. King. I assure the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) that he need have no fears on this score because he did not take part in the debate last year. It was to avoid tedious repetition that I analysed the debate very carefully so as not to repeat more than once the arguments which were adduced on that occasion by several hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  44
  As I was saying, the present Under-Secretary—the hon. Member for Greenock—wanted more advance factories; and I will return to that later. He also felt strongly that derelict land should be cleared more quickly and that a Bill should be introduced to make that possible. I think that he would now agree, although he has left the Chamber, that my hon. Friends and I have been most co-operative in the Scottish Grand Committee and that if he had wanted to introduce a small Bill to "clear up some definitions," as he put it, that would have been possible.
  The hon. Gentleman waxed furious about the failure of the Government to provide a nuclear ship. No nuclear ship yet. He went on to make the rather rash forecast that the Clyde would be more or less without orders after May. I am glad to say that that is not so and I agree that some credit—not all, but certainly some; I am anxious to be fair—for that must go to the present Secretary of State.
  The hon. Member for Greenock asked for the establishment of new docks at Leith. That was done before the last election. He also asked for large-scale investment to solve the problem of the Clyde docks. John Brown's recently made a suggestion for a completely new type of dock on the Clyde. Perhaps the Secretary of State will say whether he approves such a scheme in principle, if not in detail.
  The hon. Member for Greenock went a little further when it came somewhat nearer the election and, in his election address, a copy of which I have with me, he was quite certain. He said:
  "Labour will construct large modern advance factory premises on the vacant 22 acres at the Port Glasgow Industrial Estate".
  The Secretary of State has given us a few advance factories in the last year, but they have all been in the central belt. There was not very much imagination about that. He left out practically the only one which his hon. Friend said that Labour would establish. Greenock and the whole of Scotland would become a growth area, the hon. Member for Greenock said in his election address. Would the Secretary of State say whether the Government have abandoned the growth area concept? If so, should not they have said so?

  45
  Lastly, the hon. Member for Greenock said in that address that the Labour Party would enlarge the projected industrial training centre to train young, unskilled and retrain redundant skilled men for new jobs. A site for this training centre was picked many months ago but, as far as I am aware, not one brick stands upon the other there. That, again, is something which has been promised on behalf of the Labour Party. It was a perfectly easy thing to continue, but it has not been done.
  Then, as always, we had an interesting speech from the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter). He is a businessman with some knowledge of business and industry and also of farming. He asked that the standard of living in Scotland—and he compared it with other countries—should be greatly increased. He knows as well as I do that the actions of the present Government, particularly concerning the cost of living, have hit Scotland probably harder than any other part of the British Isles.
  The hon. Gentleman told the Committee that the agricultural policy followed by the former Labour Administration had brought about security for the farming community. Since he wanders around in farming circles as I do, would he now say that they are feeling particularly secure as the result of the last February Price Review?
  The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire then said that it was a disgrace—and the word "disgrace" was banded about freely by hon. Gentlemen opposite not long ago—that we were paying a higher price for coal in Scotland than in England. Has the Secretary of State changed that? The hon. Gentleman's last plea, no doubt from the heart, was, "Do not alter hon. Members' salaries. Alter the procedure". What has happened?
  I am getting, no doubt to the comfort of many hon. Friends opposite, towards the end of my analysis of last year's debate. The right hon. Member for Hamilton wound up that debate, but in a fairly long speech, apart from the specific request for more action at Dounreay, did not have time to specify any of the things he wanted for Scotland. He might have done the hon. Member for Fife, West out of the oscar if he had, but perhaps, in view of the other speeches, he was lucky that he did not.
  46
  The right hon. Member also put forward the perfectly fair statement that it was the duty of the Opposition to oppose, and to oppose fiercely, if they thought that the Government were not doing their duty for Scotland. He made one interesting observation, which I hope that the Secretary of State will bear in mind. He said:
  "Time and again we have been told that everything will be all right tomorrow."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1965; Vol. 699, c. 379.]
  I have a feeling that this will be the theme of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, because we have had nothing so far. I am sure that we shall be told that it will be jam tomorrow, but not jam today.
  All these speeches were united in one thing: They wanted a Socialist Government, and they wanted a Socialist Secretary of State for Scotland. Well, they have got him. Are they proud of him? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Is the right hon. Gentleman proud of himself? But there are two other Scottish members of the Cabinet, and I think that they must bear some of the blame for the fact that practically nothing has come Scotland's way this year. In last year's debate, the present Secretary of State for Scotland referred to himself as a humble peasant. I have never thought of him as a peasant and, certainly while he was in opposition, I never thought of him as humble. Perhaps the situation has changed now that he has so much to be humble about.—[An HON. MEMBER: "That is not original."]—I know that it was not original, but was made of another Socialist leader. A statement was once made from an epitaph on a Roman emperor "Omnium consensu capax imperii nisi imperasset". As there are so many schoolmasters sitting opposite, I know that I do not need to translate that—
  The Chairman: Order. I have to protect the interests of every hon. Member. Not every hon. Member is a schoolmaster; perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will translate that saying.
  Mr. Noble: I was dazzled by the range of schoolmasters opposite, Dr. King, and thought that perhaps I could get away with your indulgence. However, if I

  47
  might translate it freely, it would be, "By everyone's consent he was capable of being an emperor if only he never become emperor".
  The Secretary of State, over the last year, has disillusioned his friends, he has made fools of his party supporters, and, what to my mind is much more important, he has failed Scotland. For this reason, Dr. King, you may have noticed that we wish to reduce the Vote by the total amount of the right hon. Gentleman's salary.
  4.15 p.m.
  The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Douglas Jay): One of the interesting pieces of evidence that this debate affords is how very few Conservative Members of Parliament for Scotland are now left in this House at all. My own expectation is that after the next General Election there will be none, although I am willing to concede that there will probably be quite a number of Liberals.
  The right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) was very critical of the administration of the Board of Trade in the Government of which he was a member. I can assure him that it is a very different Board of Trade now. I have always argued in this House that the most practical way of getting the industry and employment that we all want into Scotland—and, of course, into other under-employed areas—is as follows: first, to pursue an economic policy over the whole economy which permits expansion and full employment; second, to restrict excessive factory and office extensions in the congested areas of the South and Midlands; and, third, to steer the new industrial projects coming forward vigorously and persistently towards the under-employed areas. That is the policy pursued for the last nine months, and I claim that it is already showing solid results.
  We have since last October tightened the industrial development certificate control of factory building in the South-East and the Midlands. We have introduced, as the right hon. Gentleman admitted, an entirely new office control which, although not yet law, has restricted new office building in the London metropolitan region since last November. We have launched a new programme of 29 advance
  48
  factories, of which nine are in Scotland, and we have added to the already large areas scheduled in Scotland as development districts. By a far-reaching improvement of export credit facilities, which the night hon. Gentleman also acknowledged, we have also revived the shipbuilding industry with a flow of new export orders which have specially benefited Scotland.
  In all these efforts, a very large share of our attention has gone to coalmining areas in development districts because of the problem of the continuing decline of employment in that industry. Indeed, 15 out of the 29 new advance factories which we launched last winter in Great Britain as a whole have been located in coalmining areas.
  As a result of all these policies, unemployment in Scotland has fallen in recent months to the lowest level for many years. The right hon. Gentleman quoted at some length the debate we had in the House a year ago but, throughout the whole of his speech he did not mention any unemployment figures. The July unemployment figure for Scotland as a whole of 2·6 per cent., or 57,678, is the lowest July figure since 1957. It compares with 3·3 per cent. in July 1964, 4·3 per cent. in July 1963, and 5·3 per cent. in February, 1963, which is only two and a half years ago.
  Mr. Noble: I know that the right hon. Gentleman wants to be fair and to give credit where it is due, as I did. I am sure that he will agree that before unemployment figures can start to be reduced the factories, and so on, have to be built, and he will, I think, agree that the bulk of extra employment given this year was directly and absolutely due to the fact that the previous Government had stimulated industry to come to Scotland. The results of anything which the right hon. Gentleman himself may do will come next year or the year after, but not this year.
  Mr. Jay: For the moment I am giving not credit, but facts, and the Committee can judge for itself. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the policy pursued over the last nine months has nothing to do with the present situation, he has a lot to learn about these matters.
  For development districts in Scotland the total unemployment figure in July

  49
  this year was down to 3·3 per cent., compared with 4·1 per cent. in July, 1964 and 5·3 per cent. in July, 1963. One can also trace in the figures promising evidence that concentration in the past year on the under-employed regions is beginning to affect the geographical unbalance throughout the country.
  Unemployment in Scotland over the last 12 months has shown a bigger drop than in Great Britain as a whole. In Great Britain as a whole the total has fallen between July, 1964, and July, 1965, from 1·4 per cent. to 1·2 per cent. In Scotland as a whole it was down from 3·4 per cent. to 2·6 per cent., and in the Scottish development districts from 4·1 per cent. to 3·3 per cent. That seems to show that a real distribution of industry policy, when it is vigorously enough pursued, begins to work. Production in Scotland in the first quarter of 1965 was 7 per cent. above the same quarter of 1964. That is a faster increase than in Great Britain as a whole.
  The improvement has been particularly striking in some of the previously worst hit Scottish areas. In Shotts, for instance, he drop was from 5·2 per cent. in July, 1964, to 2·9 per cent. in July, 1965. In Greenock, it was from 8 per cent. to 3·3 per cent.; in Dumbarton, from 5·6 per cent. to 3·8 per cent.; and in Cumnock, from 5·7 per cent. to 3·7 per cent.
  Mr. Noble: I know the right hon. Gentleman is giving us facts, but will he tell us what his Government have done in Shotts in Greenock, Cumnock, or anywhere else to bring about these figures?
  Mr. Jay: I am coming to that. I thought that it would be more interesting, if perhaps illogical, to give the results first and then to explain how this has been done. I am sorry to have to quote so many figures, but after the speech of the right hon. Member facts and figures may be more eloquent than words.
  In the Glasgow group as a whole unemployment in July is as low as 2·9 per cent., in North Lanarkshire 3·2 per cent., in Dundee 2·3 per cent. and in Aberdeen 1·9 per cent.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: I was waiting for that.
  Mr. Jay: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) on what he has done to incite us to get the figures down to that very low level.
  The very slight rise in unemployment in July compared with June this year is largely accounted for by the influx of school leavers. The rise in wholly unemployed in Scotland as a whole was 2,972 and 2,791 summer school leavers came on to the register.
  That is the present situation. The right hon. Member asked about new projects and I come to those. A large number of new industrial projects and developments are coming forward which I believe hold promise for the future as well as for the present. During the last nine months, apart from granting industrial development certificates freely throughout Scotland, we in the Board of Trade have been building new advance and other Government-owned factories, launching new industrial estates and going forward with the purchase of land in Board of Trade ownership so as to be well prepared for further developments in future.
  By the tougher I.D.C. policy in the South and Midlands—which will now be intensified and which the previous Government refused to do—by the lowering of the I.D.C. exemption limit to 1,000 sq. ft. instead of 5,000 sq. ft. in the South-East and the Midlands the number of expansion schemes coming forward has been increased. During the nine months, October, 1964, to June, 1965, 191 industrial development certificates were issued in Scotland. That was the highest number of approvals ever recorded in Scotland in the October-June period. These covered another 6·9 million sq. ft. of factory space, also a record amount for the nine months' period.
  These totals compare with 159 I.D.C.s and 4·5 million sq. ft. in the same nine-month period, October, 1963, to June, 1964, and 128 I.D.C.s and 3·3 million sq. ft. for October, 1962, to June, 1963. If the right hon. Member for Argyll is to argue that everything happening now is due to what was done in the past he has to explain why the total of certificates approved in the last nine months is double what it was a year ago.
  Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I wish to ask the right hon.

  51
  Gentleman a question. He has not answered my right hon. Friend's question, but is referring to I.D.C.s approved and not to factories built as a result of the Government's policy. What my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) said was that the reduction in the rate of unemployment was due to the former Government's policy. The right hon. Gentleman has not succeeded in disproving that. Can he say anything that he and his Government have done to reduce the rate of unemployment?
  Mr. Jay: Strangely enough, the I.D.C.s have to be approved before factories are built. I have shown that I.D.C. approvals have greatly increased in the last nine months and unemployment has been reduced. I will tell the Committee what has happened about advance factories, but, first, I tell the Committee that I.D.C. approvals in the period October, 1964, to June, 1965, covered factories which will employ 8,400 men and 5,900 women. This brings the total of new jobs—I do not use the term "pipeline" because I think it best to say exactly what we mean—the total of new jobs which can be foreseen from schemes actually going forward in Scotland to 54,000.
  In view of what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) said, I should explain that that excludes employment in advance factories being built for the Board of Trade or for the new town corporations. I do not want, as the right hon. Member suggested, merely to say that everything will be all right in the future; I think it better to look at the whole problem objectively and realistically. Therefore, I remind the Committee that there are also contractions and closures to be expected which are harder to compute than the known expansions and the figures I have given are of gross increase in employment and not net.
  Of the 12 advance factories which were uncompleted or unallocated in October, 1964, three—at Stranraer, Vale of Leven and Kilwinning—have since been let. One at Whitburn has been completed and sold and another at Peter-head has been allocated and should be occupied in September this year. The other seven are all being built and are expected to be ready between now and next spring.
  52
  The hon. Member for Hillhead asked what we have been doing; I will tell him. Of the nine further which I announced in November, seven are in coalmining areas. One at Blantyre, two at Queenslie and one at Bellshill are already building, and another three will start building in September, at Carluke, Cumnock and Port Glasgow. We are in the process of acquiring sites for the remaining two at Falkirk and Kilsyth.
  Those are all Board of Trade advance factories. At the same time, the new town authorities in Scotland are also building advance factories and at this moment on a bigger scale than the Board of Trade. We in the Board of Trade, of course, work with the new town authorities to find tenants for their advance factories. The present new town building programme includes 23 new advance factories in Scotland, additional to the Board of Trade ones, with a total area of 287,000 sq. ft. and a further 25 factories are planned covering a total of over 250,000 sq. ft. So the total advance factory programme in Scotland now going forward by public authorities is very large indeed.
  It may perhaps interest the Committee to know that the total number now employed in factories administered by the Industrial Estate Management Corporation for Scotland—that is, not including the new towns—is over 90,000. That is striking proof of where Scotland would be today if it were not for the industrial development planned and achieved by public enterprise.
  We in the Board of Trade are also now acquiring land and constructing new estates for future development. I had the great pleasure, as one who was in at the birth of the Newhouse Estate in 1945, of launching operations at Bellshill last January. This estate will cover 112 acres. It will aim at a total labour force of about 5,000—which incidentally, Newhouse, which is still growing, has already achieved—and the first new factory at Bellshill is already building. I am sure this will be welcome to the hon. Member for Hillhead, because it has happened in the last few months.
  Mr. Galbraith: It is quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman has not grasped the point I have tried to make. I am delighted to hear about these advance

  53
  factories. The right hon. Gentleman is claiming that they have helped to reduce unemployment. He has not shown any action which his Government have taken which has helped to reduce unemployment. He is talking about the future. It is the past that we are interested in. What has happened between the time his Government took office and now? That is what he has not answered.
  Mr. Jay: The hon. Gentleman seems to be unaware of certain very simple facts. One is that when a factory is being built people are employed to build it. Another is that people are not employed in it until it has been built. I am sure that when the hon. Gentleman has grasped those two facts he will better understand what is going on.
  We have also acquired or are acquiring 54 acres of new land for estate development at Donibristle, 18 acres at Hillington, 21 acres at Blantyre, 18 acres at Chapelhall, and another 18 acres at Port Glasgow. Land is being bought on a third main site at Dundee which will comprise a new estate of over 50 acres. I am also glad to announce today that we have reached agreement in principle with the owners to purchase approximately 90 acres on the outskirts of Falkirk, and negotiations are also going on for other sites in several other parts of Scotland.
  We have also been making grants to encourage private industrial development. Between 1st November, 1964, and 31st May, 1965, financial assistance offered totalled £7,654,913 for 279 projects promising nearly 5,000 jobs. Altogether today the total amount of public money invested by the Board of Trade in new factories, grants and loans in Scotland under the Local Employment Act since April, 1960, has reached £70,800,000. That, incidentally, is 48 per cent. of the total for the whole of Great Britain. Altogether—this is a tribute to public enterprise and what it has done for Scotland—the value of land and buildings publicly owned by the Board of Trade in Scotland through the Estate Management Corporation is now £23½ million.
  A number of important individual projects are now going forward, of which the Committee may like to have some information.
  Mr. Dalyell: Can my right hon. Friend tell us where these 90 acres outside Falkirk are? Does he have the information to hand?
  Mr. Jay: I should be very glad to let my hon. Friend know, but I would not like to give him the exact site without notice. I assure him that this project is going forward.
  I will mention a certain number of individual private projects. Associated Electrical Industries has just launched two major new projects in Glenrothes and Kirkcaldy. These should employ about 400 workers at Glenrothes and another 1,000 at Kirkcaldy. They will manufacture telephone equipment for the Post Office, and this is largely a new industry for Scotland. Burroughs Machines Ltd. is expanding at Cumbernauld and Strathleven and will provide another 700 jobs. British Hydrocarbon Chemicals at Grangemouth is investing another £8 million. Though, as is usual with the oil and petro-chemical industry, it will not employ very many more people, it will expand further the science-based petro-chemical industry in central Scotland. At Bellshill, which I mentioned, the first new factory has been let to Watson and Maclean, which will employ 130 workers on chain making.
  I could mention many other new projects which will employ substantial numbers—Hewlett-Packard, at South Queensferry, making electronic instruments, which is expanding; Yale and Towne, hardware at Livingston; Polaroid Photographic Production, in the Vale of Leven; a clothing firm in the Vale of Leven; Rolls-Royce, in a further expansion at Hillington; Elliott Bros., on micro-electronics at Glenrothes; Timex, which makes watches and camera parts, at Dundee; and North British Rubber, at Newbridge. Chemstrand, a subsidiary of Monsanto's, expects to employ large numbers before long on nylon yarn at its 350,000 sq. ft. factory at Dundonald, Ayrshire. I.C.I. plans a major expansion at Dumfries, as does the Weir Housing Corporation at Coatbridge.
  I hope also to be able to announce before long a further expansion in the chemical industry in Scotland. Meanwhile, the Leyland Motor Company, one of the most enterprising and successful

  55
  exporters in the whole country, is steadily expanding its Albion Motors Plant at Scotstoun and hopes to extend its expansion plans to Dunbarton before too long.
  At the same time, the prospects for the shipbuilding industry look brighter than for several years past.
  Sir William Anstruther-Gray: In the catalogue of new projects which the President of the Board of Trade has given us, I have not heard my two counties of Berwickshire and East Lothian mentioned. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that depopulation is a problem every bit as important as unemployment.
  Mr. Jay: I am very glad to explain to the right hon. Gentleman that the catalogue I am giving is far from exclusive. There are other schemes going forward in addition to the major ones which I have mentioned this afternoon.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Before my right hon. Friend leaves this very impressive catalogue of new factories and expansion, will he say what he is doing to expand the excellent tool industry in Scotland? He is aware that I have frequently asked that the Dounreay experimental station, which is purely experimental, should have annexed to it something of a productive character producing tools which could be exported. What is being done about that?
  Mr. Jay: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. All the facilities which we offer under the present law for development districts are available to this industry. I should be delighted to see developments such as my hon. and learned Friend suggests. I was referring to the shipbuilding industry. Not merely are the present Government advancing a substantial part of the money necessary for the building of the new "Queen" by John Brown, but the improved export facilities which I announced in January have led to a remarkable uprush in export orders for ships from British yards.
  The right hon. Member for Argyll mentioned what one of my hon. Friends said a year ago about what could be
  56
  done in the shipbuilding industry, and how right my hon. Friend was. The effect of this has been that in the United Kingdom as a whole orders for ships in the first half of 1965 were valued at £94 million, totalling 826,000 gross tons, of which 375,000 gross tons were for export.
  Export orders in the first half of 1965 in the shipbuilding industry were over three times as high as in the whole of 1964, nearly double the level in 1963, and only slightly below the record level of 1957. That is, in Great Britain as a whole. In Scotland, new shipbuilding orders have also been encouragingly high. In tonnage, they amounted to 255,000 gross tons, the highest level reached for the first half of any year since 1957. Export orders in shipbuilding in Scotland were 72,000 gross tons, nearly three times the orders received in the whole of 1964, and the highest half year figures for many years.
  The value of orders in hand and ships under construction in the United Kingdom industry at 30th June, 1965, have been estimated now at £333 million, of which the Scottish share is about £135 million, and I am delighted that our new export credit policies, which the previous Government said were impracticable, have produced such dramatic results. In addition, the Geddes Committee, which I set up last February to report on how the industry could be made even more efficient and competitive, is hoping to report early next year.
  Meanwhile, the inflow of shipbuilding orders has been so great that in Scotland, together with the growth of new engineering industries in the Central Scotland industrial areas, a shortage of skilled labour has undoubtedly made itself felt in the shipyards. The right remedy for this, in my view, is not to damp down activity in the industry, but, instead, to banish restrictive practices on the one hand and, on the other, to get back men who have left the industry and to increase the intake of apprentices. I think that my hon. Friend from Clydebank, the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) will agree with me.
  All this is under way. Arrangements for a gradual increase in flexibility in these matters and fuller use of skill are already being made in a number of individual yards in Scotland, as they are south of the Border. Scottish Members

  57
  will be aware, for example, that arrangements for shipwrights and platers to work in teams have now been adopted in the John Brown yard. A similar arrangement is in force at Stephens' yard on the Clyde.
  Mr. John Rankin: This is the particular matter on which I wanted to touch. Can my right hon. Friend say whether it has become an accepted practice and a general practice in the Scottish shipyards?
  Mr. Jay: It has, I understand, become the accepted practice in an increasing number of shipyards, but not yet throughout the whole of the industry, as I hope it will.
  I hope that both sides of the industry, therefore, will not slacken their efforts to extend such agreements both in area and in industrial scope. Shipbuilding firms are also making every effort to attract back the men who have left the industries in the leaner years of the early 1960s, under hon. Gentlemen opposite. As to the longer term, the Shipbuilding Industry Training Board is preparing schemes of training for apprentices which will fit them for the modernised shipbuilding industry of the future.
  Secondly, the Government are energetically expanding their training effort directed not just to shipbuilding but to industry as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman asked about this. There are now five fully operating training centres in Scotland, at Hillington, Motherwell, Dunbarton, Irvine and Dunfermline, with a capacity of 647 places for men in 15 different trades. There are further places for 108 apprentices sponsored for first year basic training. A further two new centres will be opened in September of this year at Queenslie and Port Glasgow estates, and existing centres will be enlarged and a new one provided in Edinburgh. This will bring the number of centres in Scotland to eight, with facilities for turning out 2,000 adult trainees per year.
  In looking at the problem dispassionately, as I said, we must always remember that industrial contractions as well as expansions are bound to appear over any period. It has been known for some time, for instance, that I.C.I.'s factories at Linlithgow and Mossend are likely to run down. The Board of Trade, having
  58
  this information, will help to find tenants when the time comes for the factories to be vacated in order to ensure that any loss of employment is as temporary as we can possibly make it. Again, as hon. Members know, Associated Chemicals has transferred its plant that was at Rutherglen to another development district outside Scotland, and here the Board of Trade, in association with the company and with a private developer, is making vigorous efforts to attract new interests to the area.
  Further contraction must be expected in the coal industry. Board of Trade policy, as I have said, has been slanted during the past year towards steering new work into areas where coal closures are likely. I am now and have been for some time in close consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power and the National Coal Board to ascertain what future closures are likely, so that we can fashion our whole policy for scheduling development districts, for launching new industrial estates, for building new advance factories and for steering new expansions in accordance with these plans.
  Perhaps I should apologise once more for inflicting so many facts and figures on the Committee, but we did not have very many from the right hon. Gentleman, and I think that facts and figures here are much more convincing than any amount of talk. In the past, we have had rather too much talk and not enough action. I have also this afternoon concentrated mainly on the industrial areas of Central Scotland and left it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to speak of the other plans which come more directly within his responsibility.
  In the months ahead, we must expect some seasonal rise in unemployment, despite all that has been done and is being done. In addition—and I say this because the right hon. Gentleman said that hon. Members had merely been told that everything would be fine in the future—we must never become complacent about the problem because, despite the success of recent months, the nature of the problem, I am convinced, is that, as soon as one relaxes, the evil forces of under-employment, neglect and emigration will set in once more. We must keep up the pressure, therefore, both

  59
  for expansion in Scotland and for restraint in the South-East. The mistake in the past has been to relax too soon.
  We cannot finally succeed in the full development of Scotland unless we build up the national export effort energetically enough to enable us to sustain the general expansion of the economy at the recent rates. The fact is that the very lowness of unemployment and the present high level of incomes are naturally tending to increase imports and making it easier for many British firms to sell at home rather than to export. This temptation must be countered if expansion is to continue. But I can assure the Committee—and here I answer what the right hon. Gentleman asked at one point in his speech—that if, to help exports, the Government feel it necessary to postpone the start of some capital development schemes in the country as a whole, the needs of the under-employed areas will be specially taken into account.
  Nevertheless, given the necessary export performance, I am confident that with the help of the Scottish Economic Planning Council and the Scottish Economic Planning Board and the vigorous pursuit of the policies that I have described, it will be within our power to achieve a steady and balanced industrial development and mobilise, in time, all the manpower that Scotland has to offer into the nation's productive effort.
  The Chairman: Before I call the next speaker, I would point out that it is evident that almost every Scottish Member wishes to take part in this important debate. Therefore, I would plead with hon. and right hon. Members to help their colleagues by keeping their speeches reasonably brief.
  4.50 p.m.
  Sir William Anstruther-Gray: In supporting the very welcome appeal which you have made to hon. Members, Dr. King, I should like to remind the Committee that in days gone by—before the war—there was a mutual arrangement, not more than just mutually agreed, whereby hon. Members did restrict themselves to shorter speeches in Scottish debates.
  Just to appreciate what difference that would make in this afternoon's debate, I saw more than 20 hon. Members, I
  60
  thought, anxious to make speeches. At about nine o'clock, I expect, the Front Bench winding-up speeches will begin. Thus we have a period of four hours, more or less. If we restrict ourselves to 10-minute speeches those four hours will allow 24 of us to contribute to the debate.
  Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Is that agreed? The right hon. Gentleman has made a most useful suggestion and I should like to ask you, Dr. King, whether or not we could accept the suggestion about 10-minute speeches.
  The Chairman: It is not a point of order, but a matter of responding to the appeal which the right hon. Member makes from a wealth of experience.
  Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Thank you, very much, Dr. King.
  Just to finish the point, if speeches are 20 minutes each, only 12 of us will be called, and if speeches should be as long as 30 minutes—and I seem to remember having heard the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) himself on occasions speak for 30 minutes—then only four Members on either side of the Committee will have a chance to speak at all. I come, therefore, straightaway to my subject.
  I wish to devote my remarks to my constituency in particular. I make no complaint of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade not having dealt with my problem, because the Secretary of State, I am sure, will be referring to it when he winds up the debate. It is, indeed, very largely a Scottish Office problem—but not entirely, because there are two sides to the Border. The north is infinitely more important, but there is a southern side of the Border, too, and Berwick-upon-Tweed itself is an English responsibility, and if Berwick-upon-Tweed is prosperous that means, of course, that the prosperity spreads up into Berwickshire.
  The situation is that although in that part of the country we are not faced with unemployment we are faced with depopulation, and we have not been given—both Governments must accept responsibility for this—the encouragement which we require to remedy that state of affairs. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), I am sure, very fully appreciates the point I am making.

  61
  What we really want is to be designated as a development district. That would allow us at least an even chance with other places of getting new factories which people may have in mind to build. This, I may say, goes farther than Berwickshire; it extends up to East Lothian; but if we are to seek any new development we have to compete with the development districts in Lanarkshire, other parts of the Lothians, and in Fife, and it is difficult to persuade a firm to sacrifice the advantages that it can get by going to those areas in order to come to us.
  In actual fact it is not entirely a tale of woe, and here I am happy to emphasise that the new Portland cement factory at Dunbar which was started under the last Government is now going ahead on that good foundation to increase its production—a very welcome fact in these days of shortage of cement—and it will provide employment for over 100 more people. All is not black, but more requires to be done.
  I direct my remarks to the Secretary of State for Scotland, because, I have had to abbreviate a little bit what, in Committee upstairs, I was endeavouring to say the other day. The first point is that we must in that area of south-east Scotland have good communications. The Secretary of State will be very well aware of the threat which British Railways hold over our heads, the threat that they will downgrade the railway service between Newcastle and Edinburgh. Well, I have begged the right hon. Gentleman before and I beg him again not to allow that to happen, because we must have rail communications if we are to hold our own.
  I turn from the railways to the roads. It was with dismay that I read yesterday in the Press that there is a threat to the road programme. I hope that that threat will not affect the part of the road programme on the A.1 between Edinburgh and London. That road is all-important if we are to attract tourists to our part of the country and make them come to it rather than avoid it, which is what many are now tempted to do.
  I want to be perfectly fair. I admit that something has to be done. The right hon. Gentleman has authorised the building of a substantial roundabout on the dangerous part of the Dunbar by-pass and has also agreed, I am very glad to say,
  62
  to some improvements on the A.1 road in Berwickshire itself. This is good work, and I would hope that these improvements will be allowed to continue, and that whatever restrictions may be the order of the day in other parts will not be allowed to affect a part of the country where depopulation is just as serious a worry to us as elsewhere is unemployment. Please let the right hon. Gentleman remember that.
  One more word, and that is about Eyemouth Harbour. This is a place with a naturally good harbour. There could be natural expansion there without artificially bringing industries to places to which they do not necessarily want to go. The harbour is dependent upon its being possible for ships to enter at high tide and at low tide and in fair weather and in foul weather. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that about £380,000 was spent under the previous Government in improving that harbour. Those improvements are not entirely satisfactory. A further, much smaller, subsidiary sum is required, and it is required urgently. I urge the Secretary of State to give us that money as soon as he can, so that we can at least save one promising spot, where the population is increasing and employment can follow that increase—and save it before it is too late.
  4.58 p.m.
  Mr. A. Woodburn: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray) on representing such a fine constituency. I am willing to support him in his plea. His constituency, like my own, and like others in Scotland—West Fife, for example—are very nice and it is vitally important, when we are inviting industries to come to Scotland, that they should go to places where it is worth while to live. I could sell the right hon. Gentleman's constituency anywhere, and I could also sell West Fife, and my own constituency. Stirlingshire, because those are very good places in which to live.
  This reinforces a point which I should like my right hon. Friend to keep in mind, namely, that it is desirable to avoid sending more and more industry to places which are already congested and to try and get them into places which

  63
  have some industry and population and have the opportunity of growth. This includes the Borders. The Scottish Council issued a Report some years ago, to which I am sorry to say the last Government paid little attention. It pointed out that one of the ways to reallocate industry was to develop existing small towns and their industries rather than to depend entirely upon bringing new industries into Scotland. I hope that this point will be looked at closely.
  It is not always necessary to build new factories and houses. If only the Government would redirect their orders to existing firms in these areas they would expand naturally. Instead of youngsters leaving for Glasgow to learn to become engineers they would learn their trade in their own areas. Fraserburgh is an example where two brothers developed an engineering factory which has become a successful business in the North-East of Scotland. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will keep this point in mind.
  I should like to thank my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade for what he has done since he took office in October and also for what he did in the lifetime of the previous Labour Government in bringing industry to Scotland. He has played a great part in formulating the policy of allocation of industry, an important matter which I regret to say the previous Government overlooked. I do not deny that the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) gave a death-bed push to Scottish industry on behalf of the Conservative Government.
  When we left office in 1951 we had established factories to provide 126,000 jobs and there was a promise of further development of factories in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman's Government promptly forgot all about it and for over 10 years allowed Scotland to decay. They knew that industry was declining, particularly the coalmining industry. A Royal Commission had made this clear, but the Conservative Government made no provision for new industries when the coal industry had departed. They provided nothing to replace the declining shipping industry. Beardmores, on Clydebank, had built the battleships, but by their own policy the Conservative Government
  64
  destroyed the prospects of employment and prosperity in that area.
  They had a great responsibility for the decay in the employment of skilled men in Scotland. When they saw the election approaching they provided too much of a programme, in the sense that it was quite incapable of fulfilment. The building industry could not possibly have carried out the programme which they laid down before the election without changing methods and finding far more materials than were available. If the Conservatives had returned to office they would not have been able to carry it out.
  Mr. Noble: The building industry was able to complete the programme. I was asked over and over again by hon. and right hon. Members opposite to provide the building contractors with a long-term programme which they could plan. I did exactly that and they completed the programme.
  Mr. Woodburn: Many hospitals are still to be built. Many of them, and many other projects which were sketched out, were incapable of fulfilment without an expansion of methods and materials in the building industry. The Scottish building industry suffers from lack of plasterboard, bricks and other materials for which no preparation was made by the Conservative Government. As has been pointed out, these could not have been produced without an expansion programme being established 12 months or 18 months ago.
  It is important to the planning of industry in Scotland that there should be an expansion of the building trade. I am guided by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) in saying that the building trade has developed new methods and that we can look forward to expansion, but we must wait for the building materials industry to be expanded to supply the building industry.
  The larger problem of production in Scotand depends upon either more labour or more productivity from existing labour. We shall fail unless we have more productivity from existing labour. We cannot earn our living by merely trying to produce more by means of overtime, because this means more wages and therefore more purchasing power and a higher consumption of goods at home, which means,

  65
  in turn, less being available for export. This is the wrong way to go about it. If there is more productivity from labour we shall be able to produce more, not only for export but also to satisfy home consumption as well.
  I can well understand that the Prime Minister and the Government are coming to the point where they must counteract this imbalance in home consumption and get more effort devolted to exports. This country cannot continue to eat its seed corn and survive. There must be contraction of consumption at home so that productivity and production can develop in the export trade, otherwise we shall fail. When the Scottish shipbuilding industry was busy it drew on carpenters and joiners in the house-building industry. When this happens there is sooner or later a transfer of labour and a shrinkage in house building.
  If this is to take place now I hope that the country will realise that the export trade is more important to our economic survival even than the provision of accommodation and the means of a more luxurious life at home. Every economically expanding country has had to concentrate on factories before housing. This may come in this country. The Government must be ready to slow down home consumption to produce the capacity for exports.
  I say this because Scotland is peculiarly fitted for the export trade and, I am sure, will develop it if it is given the opportunity. I have mentioned the lack of foresight in the past. We should now try to get industry to go to places where housing already exists. If we start new towns we must build houses and factories, but if industry is sent to places like Haddington the houses already exist there. Housing is available in many villages where the mining industry is closing down. There is the possibility of avoiding capital expenditure on housing if new industries are guided there. What is the good of miners leaving villages in Fife to go south where more houses have to be built for them?
  Mr. William Baxter: My right hon. Friend will be mindful of the fact that Cowie, Plean, Bannockburn and Fallin, next door to his constituency, but actually in mine, are typical examples of the kind of places he
  66
  mentions. I approve very much of his sentiments.
  Mr. Woodburn: I thank my hon. Friend, but I hope that he will remember that he is taking part of my 10 minutes.
  Mr. Baxter: Then my right hon. Friend can take half a minute longer.
  Mr. Woodburn: The examples given by my hon. Friend are interesting and there are examples, also, in my constituency. There is plenty of room in places like Haddington where people could have had a nice living and good educational opportunities for their children. This would have avoided cluttering up those parts of Scotland which are becoming like parts of Lancashire where one hardly moves out of built-up areas for scores of miles. Industry must be spread over the country. I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us of his plans in this regard, embracing even the Highlands so that something can be done there as well.
  Scotland's export production must be improved. Our export trade will have to be developed not only by expanding industry in Glasgow and the congested area round about, but by spreading industry to the Borders, down to Dumfriesshire, even up to Brechin, where there is a very good engineering nucleus already, into Fraserburgh, and the rest.
  I congratulate the right hon. Member for Argyll on Dounreay, I congratulate him on the pulp mill, and I congratulate him on the eventual decision which Mr. Macmillan took, in spite of the objection of the Chairman of the Conservative Party in Scotland, to send a steel mill to Scotland. But I remind him that these are all examples of public enterprise For 10 years, we pressed the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to develop Scotland by public enterprise because Scotland cannot be developed by private enterprise until there is a good foundation of population and a good foundation in the economy.
  5.10 p.m.
  The Earl of Dalkeith: All of us who are Scots eagerly welcome this annual debate because it evokes within us some of our nationalistic sentiments and gives us a chance to speak up for what

  67
  we believe to be right for Scotland. I hope that our nationalistic sentiments are sufficiently infectious even to encourage some of the Welshmen, Ulstermen and Englishmen sitting on the Government benches to speak up for Scotland as well. I had the impression that some of them were pregnant with speeches.
  I listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), and with some parts of it I agreed, notably when he asked for the spreading of industry throughout the whole of Scotland. I shall return to that point later. But there were moments when I wondered whether anyone had told him that the Labour Party won the General Election last autumn. I heard him carrying on in the same sort of vein that hon. and right hon. Members opposite used to follow when they were in opposition, castigating the Government, or anyone they could find to castigate, on the subject of jobs. I was astounded by one proposition which the right hon. Gentleman appeared to advance. I hope that I misheard him, but I understood him to say that we should cut back on our slum clearance programme and sacrifice this sort of good work in order to increase shipbuilding. I do not know whether I misunderstood In my view, slum clearance deserves the very highest priority.
  Our previous debates were chiefly notorious for the way in which the Opposition at that time castigated the Government. Criticism is all very well, but constructive criticism is a good deal better. Now that we are the Opposition, I hope that we shall not follow the example of right hon. and hon. Members opposite. I hope that our contribution will always be constructive. Moreover, I am sure that we shall not do as they so often did, which is to paint the blackest possible picture of Scotland, which, of course, does more than anything else to discourage potential industrialists from coming to Scotland.
  After 13 years of torrents of abuse and criticism from right hon. and hon. Members opposite, we had the right to expect an explosion of brilliant new ideas for solving Scotland's economic ills. However, nine months have passed, with
  68
  precious little to show beyond a continuation of the policies which we ourselves started. Nine months is quite a long time, and quite a lot of things can happen in that period. I can only conclude that the ideas of right hon. and hon. Members opposite were not as fertile as many people had hoped, or that their gestation period is like that of the dinosaur.
  I listened to the President of the Board of Trade with some interest, but I could only feel that we were listening to the out-pourings of a dehydrated computer. In so far as he touched on human problems at all and discussed the present unemployment figures, he appeared to be bathing in the reflected glory of our achievements during the past few years. In decency and conscience, he cannot possibly claim that the low unemployment figures today are the result of his Government's efforts.
  Beyond the proliferation of review bodies and planning boards, the Government have failed to produce the startling, new and dynamic ideas which some people expected of them. Obviously, no one begrudges planning, least of all I myself, a forester accustomed to planning 100 years ahead, but planning is only a part of the general scheme of things for solving our problems. Innumerable plans have already been made and a great many others have been patently obvious. What is important is that they should be implemented, and this, of course, largely depends upon money.
  The acid test of any Government's performance, to show whether or not they are better than the previous Government, is whether they can extract more money from the Treasury both for public spending and for stimulating the private sector of industry. So far, all this Government appear to have done has been vastly to increase the difficulties and cost of borrowing money, thereby contributing to the general shortage of investment capital. Penal taxation is hardly the best weapon to stimulate private enterprise into taking the sort of risks which are so essential to launch our industries into the new endeavours which we simply must have if we are to provide Scotland with an economy which is really modern and assist in the transition from the older declining heavy industries to the modern science-based industries.

  69
  When the Government established the new Ministry of Technology, we were led to hope that they would give new recognition to the problems of technology and science. A fanfare of trumpets greeted the appointment of the Minister of Technology, but now the sound of the trumpets has faded and it is abundantly clear that it was nothing more than a cleverly devised move to put a protective shoe over the Achilles heel of the Labour Party.
  Mr. Dalyell: The noble Lord is being less than generous. Will he agree that, although there may be grounds for attacking him, on this particular issue my right hon. Friend has made a fundamental decision, giving the real prize, the real plum in technology, namely, numerical control and computer design, to Scotland?
  The Earl of Dalkeith: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that I have been unfair in picking upon his right hon. Friend as being the Achilles heel of the Labour Party, there are many others, I am sure, who would qualify to be placed with him in a similar category. Nevertheless, during the 250 days in which the Government have been in office, the right hon. Gentleman has, as far as I can gather, managed to spare only one day for a personal fact-finding mission to study Scotland's technological and scientific potential. If he has done more than that, I shall be only too pleased to hear about it.
  In February this year, the Scottish Council produced a statement of immense importance on the subject of technology and science. I mention this even though it contains some uncomplimentary passages, as well as complimentary ones, about the previous Government. The points it makes are too vital to be ignored for any reason, and, in any case, our function here is to look forward, not to look back.
  If the Government are to show a serious regard for the problems of regional development, they have many things to do in the field of science and technology. I beseech the right hon. Gentleman to tell us, when he winds up the debate, a little about his plans in this direction. Perhaps he can tell us what proportion of those engaged in the D.S.I.R. are working in Scotland as
  70
  opposed to the rest of the United Kingdom, and whether he has any plans for establishing new laboratories in Scotland or moving existing laboratories there. It is important that the Government should give a lead in moving their own offices and laboratories wherever they can to set an example to private industry to do the same.
  What about the Forestry Commission and its new headquarters? Could it not be moved to Scotland? It would seem to be eminently logical and sensible that it should go there. After all, in Scotland it would be nearest to its main centres of production, particularly if one includes the forests on the English side of the Border, which are, of course, within close reach. The exact situation of such headquarters might produce some difficulties, but I for one would not insist that it should go to a development district.
  This brings me to a point which the right hon. Gentleman made in his speech about spreading industry more widely than hitherto, and, indeed, to the classification and designation of development districts. Now that so much progress has been made in the areas with the heaviest concentrations of unemployment, has not the time come for us to embark upon a stage two operation whereby the aim would be to stimulate growth in other regions of Scotland where there have already been signs of natural growth, because it is in those areas that natural growth is easier to encourage and, indeed, where self-regeneration is more likely to take place? I have in mind various areas such as those around Edinburgh and to the South and, as was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray), the Border counties.
  I cannot help feeling that one of our problems is to boost the whole of the Scottish economy. If the right hon. Gentleman could do this and include the areas at present outside the development districts, I think that we should encourage a much swifter flow of families from the bleaker unhappier and over-congested parts of Scotland. Many of our more enterprising young men and women are tending nowadays to seek their opportunities outside the Glasgow and North Lanarkshire regions. Let us at least try, if we can, to waylay them on their way to Australia or wherever else they are

  71
  going, waylay them in the green and pleasant land of the Borders, where, I am sure, we can provide them with the opportunities they are seeking.
  Incidentally, just before the General Election an Australian friend of mine who is a staunch Conservative said how much he hoped that the Labour Party would win, because most of the enterprising, virile young men from this country would pack their bags and hurry out to Australia. This was exactly what the Australians were hoping would happen, because they need talent of this kind. Yet these are the very people that Scotland most urgently needs to keep so as to boost its future economy.
  Clearly, we all have an immense task to do in recreating Scotland as a land of opportunity, enterprise and culture—the Government, local authorities, trade unions, the people of Scotland themselves and, of course, particularly the managers of businesses and industries. Too often we see Scotland as the cradle of inventive genius, and too often the ideas are left to be developed or exploited in other parts of the country or the world. This is true today of the whole of the United Kingdom. The latest most glaring example is in connection with the development of the Hovercraft. It has now been left to the Swedes to show the necessary courage and enterprise to develop the trans-channel Hovercraft on a large scale in order to transport British people to and from this country.
  What has happened to the imagination, initiative and the risk-taking capacity of our people? If it was partly stifled by the high taxation of the previous Administration, there would certainly seem to be no sense in making matters even worse by suffocating it altogether through an even more massive dose of the same medicine. I suggest that the most essential thing that any Government can do to stimulate regional development is to create oppotunities for the individual to prosper, and by "individual" I mean everybody from the apprentice to the managing director. I am utterly convinced that the carrot of inducement yields far better than the stick of coercion, which is so often the way of Labour Governments.
  Several years ago the principle of fiscal incentives on a geographical basis
  72
  was frowned upon. Yet my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) broke down the barriers when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer and introduced them in his Budget three years ago in the field of investment allowances. These have shown considerable success. Could we not now extend this principle a stage further into the more personal field of Income Tax and/or rating relief?
  My last point concerns industrial harmony. Last week there was a debate on this subject in another place, and I believe that it was one of the most important debates to take place in either House during this Session. Lord Thomson of Fleet deserves to be congratulated on his initiative in bringing this subject forward. A great deal of what was said on all sides in that debate was particularly relevant to Scotland and her prospects as a modern developing nation. Nothing could be more certain to hamper the prospects of growth in Scotland than the needless unofficial disputes which too often take place.
  Nothing could be more certain to frighten away potential industrialists than the disputes in the industries which we have struggled to bring to Scotland in recent years. If, by the application of common sense on the part of both management and men, we can make Scotland a shining example of industrial harmony, I believe that we shall accelerate the progress which we all want to see in Scotland.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: This is very important. Does the noble Lord realise that the hours lost through industrial disputes in Scotland have fallen from 561,000 in 1962 to 161,000 in 1964 and that the hours lost through strikes in the motor industry in Scotland are less than those in Birmingham and Coventry?
  The Earl of Dalkeith: The hon. Gentleman's standard may be different from mine, but I regard one hour unnecessarily lost through an unofficial dispute as too much.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is my hon. Friend aware that the hours lost by the motor industry in Scotland during the first six months this year were almost double those during the whole of 1964?
  The Earl of Dalkeith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being able, as usual, to produce accurate statistics, which he appears to have at his fingertips.
  If the damage that wildcat strikes can do to Scotland's prospects and her good name, especially when in new firms such as Rootes, ought to be more generally and deeply realised and recognised, I believe that there would then be a greater sense of self-restraint than there has been in the past. I wonder whether it would not be possible for both sides of the House of Commons for once to unite in making an appeal—we ought, of course, to enlist the wholehearted support of the Press and television—not only to the men but more especially to the wives to recognise that they are cutting not just their own throats but the throats of their children and grandchildren, because nothing is more certain to discourage new industries from coming to Scotland than these unofficial industrial disputes.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: I do not want to get involved in the wholesale slaughter by the hon. Member of the families of motor workers, but he has mentioned Rootes in terms of irresponsibility. May I remind him that the most responsible agreement which has been signed in recent years between trade union and management was the agreement prepared by the Rootes shop stewards, who behaved in a highly responsible fashion? It was a completely new type of agreement which solved the kind of disputes which had been going on, which were not the fault of the workers but were because of the problems inherent in the area. I hope to develop the point if I am fortunate in being called in the debate.
  The Earl of Dalkeith: As always, I am grateful to the hon. Member for doing his best to inform me. I warmly welcome anything that is done to reduce these disputes. If the hon. Member has the opportunity of developing his argument in the debate, I shall be delighted to listen to every word of his speech.
  If we can get this appeal across to the people who are involved in this sort of action, and particularly to the wives, who have a great deal of influence upon
  74
  their husbands, at least this debate may have achieved something.
  5.32 p.m.
  Mr. Thomas Steele: I am tempted to follow the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh, North (The Earl of Dalkeith), but I will content myself with making three short remarks about it. First, it was a high compliment to the Labour Government that the noble Lord expected them to do in nine months what his own Government failed to do in 13 years. Secondly, the noble Lord has shown evidence of a great deal of effort, because his phrases were reminiscent of the midnight oil. Thirdly, the hon. Member asked for restraint. Earlier this afternoon the Chair called for restraint on the part of hon. Members, but the noble Lord took double his share of the time.
  The Earl of Dalkeith: If the hon. Member reads my speech, he will notice that I particularly criticised the Government for not producing new ideas, new plans and new ways of doing things. That is what is so disappointing. I apologise for having taken more than my fair share of the time, but for the last three years I have been "gagged" in these debates by being a P.P.S.
  Mr. Steele: The noble Lord should show a little more restraint than to try now to make another speech.
  The two opening speeches in the debate ran rather to form. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade did what other Presidents of the Board of Trade have done from the Front Bench. He was able to show exactly what was happening and, by quoting figures for jobs and employment, he gave the general pattern of industry and employment in Scotland. There were differences between what has happened in the past nine months and what happened previously, but in the main it was a good Board of Trade brief and my right hon. Friend adequately dealt with it.
  The right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), who opened the debate, then proceeded repeatedly to interrupt my right hon. Friend. What we got from the right hon. Gentleman, and what we will get from other hon. Members opposite, is that all that has happened in the past

  75
  year was the result of plans made by the Tory Government when they were in power. That is exactly what I expected would happen. I am very happy that the situation has improved. It has improved over past years and it has improved this year. No one is happier about this than I am, because 12 months ago the constituency that I represent was having a bad year. What has happened over the past year has been very helpful.
  My next remarks are directed again to the right hon. Member for Argyll. A number of years ago, I took a deputation to the Board of Trade and we put our case. As usual, the Press release was written before we arrived. That is the experience that we have all had at the Board of Trade. I was, however, concerned about a remark that was made to me by an official at the Board of Trade. In the presence of my constituents, he said to me that the problem of employment and industry was like the tide. It had come in to the Midlands, it was then enveloping South Wales, soon it would reach the north-east of England and then it would come to Scotland. After that remark, I refused to take any more deputations to see Presidents of the Board of Trade. It was clear to me that they were simply waiting for the tide to come in, whereas I was not prepared to wait for that to happen.
  That remark also made me very concerned about the general attitude of the Board of Trade. I was deeply concerned about what happened in the case of British Oxygen, a firm which the Board of Trade was anxious should come to Scotland. I regarded the removal of the factory lock, stock and barrel to Dumbarton as an ideal operation which any Government would wish to see.
  In a situation of that kind, however, the Board of Trade has to take a negative position. In the first place, British Oxygen had wanted to expand in the South and it had already made provision to do so. When it wanted to make the move, however, the Board of Trade said, "No" and had to try to encourage the firm to go to Scotland. This process took a number of years. The company argued about a site and what assistance it would receive, and in the end it did not come to Dumbarton. I am convinced that it was the slight recession at that time which
  76
  made British Oxygen change its mind. The problem as I see it is that there is no positive action behind what the Board of Trade and the Government generally try to do.
  I listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said this afternoon. He illustrated the three items which he had in mind. I have heard those three traditional items mentioned repeatedly. Each of them is negative, however, because no action is taken by the Government in respect of any of the three until an application is submitted.
  I pay tribute to the officials of B.O.T.A.C. Under the 1960 Act, a great deal of new industry has come to Scotland. Some of it has come to my constituency. Whenever I have been in touch with any of the officials, I have had nothing but courtesy in the assistance which they have been able to give. In the circumstances of today, however, I should like to know from my right hon. Friend whether he considers that B.O.T.A.C. and the 1960 Act are the correct machinery to use.
  Mr. Dalyell: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Steele: One firm in my constituency has now been able to get assistance from B.O.T.A.C., but it has taken a considerable time to get it. The company wanted the assistance for one thing only, and that was to develop the export of its products. The firm was already exporting, but it wanted to improve on its performance. The Government have rightly insisted that firms which want to export, particularly to the dollar market, should be assisted. In view of my experience over the past few years, I believe that this is the sort of matter which has to be studied and I hope that there will be some new thinking and some new ideas.
  The Board of Trade is an advisory body which helps industry in many ways, but it does not act in the positive kind of way which I believe to be necessary. This view has been reinforced by what happened only 18 months or two years ago, when the then Minister of Housing and Local Government set up an office in London to assist industry and offices to move out of the city. This policy has been very successful. I read a report in the Glasgow Herald of 13th July showing

  77
  how successful the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has been in assisting industry and offices to move out of London. But where are they going? Who decides where they should go? That is not the job of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, but of the Board of Trade.
  Mr. Jay: I have discussed this matter with the Location of Offices Bureau which, in its national location policy, is guided by the Board of Trade. As a result of this, one very large firm has recently moved to Sunderland, as my hon. Friend may know.
  Mr. Steele: I am very glad to hear it. I have discussed this matter with a number of employers in London. Resulting from the failure of our talks with the Board of Trade, Dumbarton Town Council and Dunbartonshire County Council set up their own industrial estates and went out to seek firms themselves. In recent months I have found that employers are desperate to get out of London because of staff problems.
  This is where the tide begins to move. Economic circumstances—high rents and scarcity of labour—drive many firms out of London and towards Scotland. The right hon. Member for Argyll, who is enjoying my speech, should not take so much credit, because it has been the tide which has been flowing north not the efforts of the Tory Government, which has brought about our successes.
  We now have the new planning councils and I hope that they will result in some positive action, but I am afraid that we may be adding the fifth wheel to the coach. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to assure me that that will not be so. In Scotland, we do not lack advice and people prepared to plan. The Board of Trade has an office in Scotland and the Scottish Council operates in the same way, while the Secretary of State for Scotland has a special interest in the new towns. My experience is that, instead of co-ordination and co-operation among the three, they have generally been fighting each other for whatever industry is available. The extension at Cumbernauld would never have occurred there, but would have been a development in my constituency if the then Secretary of State for Scotland had not interfered. There should be co-operation among
  78
  those three bodies and with local authorities doing this kind of work.
  The difficulty about the competition which is now going on is that all of these bodies are at the wrong end. They are all trying to attract industry. But what body knows which firms are prepared to come? It is in this connection that the Board of Trade ought to be much more active. Apart from the new planning councils and my right hon. Friend the First Secretary, I would like the Board of Trade itself to take more power in this matter. It is the Department which has the knowledge and experience of industry. I would like it to be much more active about finding out what firms propose to do. If legislation, or money, is required for the purpose, let it be provided. If the Board of Trade were able to know in advance what was to happen, we would not have the present negative attitude and the Board of Trade could be more positive in its approach. It is along these lines, rather than more planning councils or wheels to the coach, that we can hope for the expansion in Scotland which we need.
  5.46 p.m.
  Mr. Hector Monro: I am very glad to have the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele), who speaks with great knowledge and interest of the Board of Trade. I echo many of the things he said. Hon. Members opposite should pay more tribute to the foundations on which they started last year. The structure was not at ground level but well on the way up to the roof. If the Government do not complete the building of the employment situation, it will be a very sad story. I hope that they will press on with all speed towards that end.
  The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West spoke of the set-up of the Board of Trade in Glasgow and I add my tribute to his. I have had negotiations with the officials there and I have found them most helpful and forward-looking. However, I sometimes wonder whether it would not be advantageous if we could have the Scottish office of the Board of Trade and the Scottish Development Department under one roof. Separated as they are, there is a great

  79
  deal of extra telephoning, sometimes under extreme pressure when businessmen want to move fast.
  The Local Employment Acts have been of tremendous benefit to Scotland. I know from my own dealings with businessmen who are considering coming to Scotland that the incentives are of the greatest importance. If the Government want to attract more industry to Scotland, they should extend the incentives, which are a major factor in bringing new industry from England.
  I am glad that the President of the Board of Trade has spoken about the coal industry. This industry is vulnerable and in the development district in my constituency we are always worried about pit closures, for the alternatives are very few. In a way, there is a vicious circle, because we cannot attract new industry until labour is available, so that the new industry will not come until a pit has closed. But that leaves a gap of about a year while an advance factory is built. I appreciate the difficulty, but I urge the President of the Board of Trade to make every effort to overcome this serious problem in the coal-mining areas.
  I want to refer to the educational side of industry. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman stressed the importance of the development of industrial retraining. This is important to the coal-mining industry, because we have to train the coal miners to become engineers or other skilled labour. There is no doubt that the expansion of technical colleges in recent years has been a tremendous success. They are now bursting at their seams and young boys and girls are queuing up to get in. I want to see that continued. In the same way the day-release scheme has been slow to get off the ground, but now I think it is rolling and we want to give every encouragement to this very good idea. Even more important is the need to encourage industry to provide more apprenticeships, and when we have the apprentices let us make sure that we have the skilled jobs for them once they are qualified.
  As the President of the Board of Trade was talking about the employment figures today—it is, as he said, fair to say that the slight increase in July over June is
  80
  because of the school-leaving problem—I think we should give, as I did in respect of the Board of Trade in Glasgow, credit to the employment exchange officers and youth officers for the outstanding job they are doing in placing school leavers.
  I want to move from there to the important point of the cost of these educational schemes. Some part of the cost, I know, comes from central funds, as in the case of the technical colleges. But there is no doubt at all that the cost of education to local authorities is soaring beyond their capacity. This in turn is forcing up rates. Here again we have the vicious circle, because the higher rates go the less likely we are to attract industry. The sooner the Government are able to take some decision on removing part of the cost of education from local authorities to central funds the better. In this way those areas which have pressed on with exceptional housing programmes and very much above-average school buildings will be able to reduce their rates to a more universal level, and in that way they will attract more industry.
  I want to move on to technology and the Atomic Energy Authority in Scotland. As we know there is the South of Scotland Electricity Board power station at Hunterston, and two Atomic Energy Authority stations at Dounreay and Chapelcross. Some expansion, particularly in the two Atomic Energy Authority stations, is becoming essential if we are to retain the confidence and the numbers of workers in this industry. Last month we had a visit from the Minister of Technology, who inspected our two Scottish stations. I am quite certain that he was pleased with what he saw, and I hope that it helped him to make up his mind as to where the future fast reactor is to be sited, if the Atomic Energy Authority recommends to the Government that it should be built. I am concerned that we should be having such a long delay over this announcement. In the last report of the Atomic Energy Authority, in March 1964, the design was nearly completed, and I understand that the last Government would have made an announcement this spring.
  A year ago the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State was impatiently asking my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) why a decision had not been made. Yet here we are,

  81
  twelve months later, not one inch nearer a public announcement. Why are we having a delay over this decision? What is going to be the size of the fast reactor and how many people is it going to employ? I connot see that there is anything desperately secret about this. We have a great pride in the Atomic Energy Authority. Let us blow our trumpet from the rooftops and hear more about it. The important thing to bear in mind is that there are probably three or four sites in the United Kingdom for this fast reactor, two of which are in Scotland, the one at Dounreay and the other at Chapelcross. Both these sites have much in common. They have the space, the labour is available, and there are social and economic reasons for the reactor being built there.
  It may be that Chapelcross may be nearer to the centre of Britain and on the grid, and it may be it has technical advantages. I am not going to put one against the other today. The point is that we must get it to Scotland. In my honest opinion, the fast reactor will not come to Scotland unless the Secretary of State makes a very determined fight to get it. I have a feeling that a site in England is at this moment the front runner and I earnestly urge the Secretary of State to make every possible effort to make sure that Scotland obtains this reactor.
  If we are not to have the fast reactor in Scotland, what other developments can we look forward to in this important industry? Can we have more generating capacity? Can we have an extension of laboratories or another desalination plant or diversification, as the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) suggested? We certainly must not let the skills of the Atomic Energy Authority workers evaporate into thin air. The Minister of Technology set up an advisory council on technology this year. Has it met in Scotland? Has it discussed Scotland's problems? Has the future of the Atomic Energy Authority been tied into the regional surveys? We are hopefully awaiting the publication of these surveys, which will be under very careful consideration at this moment. Perhaps action will be taken later this year. I would like to ask, because it is not a parochial matter, to what extent is the
  82
  Solway plan being considered? I feel that the Government may have got their priorities wrong over this most important concept.
  The Minister of Land and Natural Resources and the Secretary of State for Scotland have set up a feasibility study. This is purely on the technical possibilities. At the same time I am quite sure they should have set up, in parallel, a survey on the economic and social effects so that both plans could be considered together in the not too distant future. I ask the Secretary of State at this stage to go to the Strathclyde University, which has a regional study group and to ask it to look at the economic and social aspects of this problem. I feel that at the moment many people in the area are thinking that we may end up with a freshwater reservoir. That will be an anticlimax. What we want is something that will attract industry and employment to the area. A night-watchman for a freshwater reservoir does not seem to give us what we want.
  This is not a debate on agriculture, but I must confess—[Interruption.] I said not a debate on agriculture.
  Mr. Rankin: While it may not be specifically a debate on agriculture, agriculture is an industry and this is a debate on industry. We must not forget that.
  Mr. Monro: The hon. Member has a wonderful sense of anticipation. That is exactly what I was going to say, but I did not wish to be called to order on moving on to a specific subject not covered by this debate. The very important point is that a profitable agricultural industry is the basis of rural economy. If agriculture is doing well then we are going to get employment in machinery, in the blacksmiths' shops, the corn merchants, the "tatty" merchants and in the shops. All this is of the greatest importance. The farmers are still recovering from a miserable Price Review and, although I do not blame the Government for the weather—
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): Why not?
  Mr. Monro: I am always a fair and reasonable person. Although I do not blame the Government, the farmers are having a most disappointing summer. I

  83
  would like to see further encouragement from the Government for such fine bodies as the Scottish Country Industries Development Trust, which is providing technical and marketing advice to rural industries in connection with agriculture, engineering, boat-building, weaving, and so on. If we could get this moving we would not have the present degree of depopulation of the rural areas.
  There is one other point that I want to make about rural economy, namely, the industrial side of lime. Last week we had a new lime order, under which the lime producers have taken another severe knock. The Secretary of State for Scotland is primarily responsible for producing lime as cheaply as possible, but the order will mean that lime producers will lose their profitability. The Secretary of State must bear some responsibility. Under the new order the scales will be heavily weighted in favour of England.
  There is a higher subsidy contribution and higher allowances, enabling lime to be sold at a favourable price, which is a good thing, but this price will be financed by the Treasury. This is detrimental to the taxpayer, and provides no corresponding benefit to Scotland. Scottish producers should be encouraged to expand. The solution lies in a reduction of depot weighting contributions. The contributions should be weighted according to the cheapest form of transport, which is shipborne rather than roadborne.
  The maximum contribution has been reduced to 70 per cent., which will mainly favour the English producers, because they have the longest haulage. In Scotland it will average about only 55 per cent. I therefore ask the Minister to consider the position of lime producers, because the action that the Government have taken is very detrimental to their interests.
  I now turn to the key to Scotland, namely, roads. Under the last Government we had a rapid expansion in road construction. I live near the A74 and have seen the tremendous benefit which this dual carriageway between the Border and Larkhall has brought to Scotland. I want to put to the Minister a point that he declined to accept in Committee. I know that he is not responsible for the
  84
  English trunk road system, but at this moment there is a significant gap between the top of the M6 at Kendal and the Scottish Border. Until that gap is closed there will be great difficulty in bringing industry to Scotland.
  If the Under-Secretary had to spend about one-and-a-half hours travelling north through Carlisle to the Border he would know that there is no encouragement for English industrialists to move north. If he and his right hon. Friend could impress the Minister of Transport with the urgency of connecting the north of England to the south of Scotland I am sure that new industry would rapidly flow into Scotland. Road transport is of the greatest importance in bringing new industry to Scotland.
  If the Government pay heed to all that they have heard from my hon. Friends and take the necessary action Scotland will have no worries in the years ahead.
  6.4 p.m.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: I was surprised at the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) that we should compliment the previous Administration on the rapid construction of the arterial road from Carlisle to Larkhall. I left Birmingham for Scotland in 1951, and when I travelled through Blackpool by car I saw that the road had been started. Last time I came down from Scotland it had not been finished, and that was last summer. They had been 14 years on it so far. At that rate it is a blessing that the last Administration left office when they did. At that speed we should never get any industry into Scotland.
  Hon. Members opposite have made some extraordinary speeches. The right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) catalogued all the constructive suggestions that were made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last year. Those were the right hon. Gentleman's words. Yet the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (The Earl of Dalkeith) started off by castigating Members of the present Administration for the destructive speeches that they made when his party formed the Government. I know that they have an election on at the moment, but they should forget it for the time being in order to sort out the question whether the speeches that were made by

  85
  my hon. and right hon. Friends were abusive or constructive.
  I am shocked that Scottish Members of Parliament should continue to support the ideas enunciated by Lord Thomson in another place, and follow the general line that has been taken by the Press, that industrial friction is worse in Scotland than it is in other parts of the United Kingdom. This just is not true. I know the motor industry very well, having spent my life in it. I wish hon. Members opposite would realise that it is a very complicated and difficult business to organise and bring together over 3,000 components in order to put them into a motor car.
  It is all very well to walk round a motor plant and see motor cars being assembled on a conveyor belt, and to imagine that it is an easy process. It is not. It is a very difficult and frustrating process. When a motor plant is established in a new area, new labour has to be obtained and there is a great deal of frustration on both sides. The planners, the toolmakers, the production engineers, the progress clerks, and all kinds of people who are concerned with bringing together the various components of a motor car, have to suffer a good deal of frustration. Tremendous difficulties are experienced by both sides of the industry, and these tend to boil up. Even in Coventry and Birmingham, who have been at this work for 50 years, difficulties leading to slow production are still experienced.
  I do not want to go into all the difficulties which lead to frustration and industrial disputes in our automated system of production, but I ask hon. Members opposite to remember that to dwell on the question of who was to blame gets us nowhere. An industrial dispute arises through many factors, which may have built up over a period. There may be a quick strike and then a settlement, after which, we hope, everything goes on as before. We deprecate these strikes, but we have to remember that people in the factory, on both sides, do not like them either. The men do not like these strikes. I beg hon. Members not to give the impression that relations between management and workers in the motor industry in Scotland are worse than they are in Birmingham, Coventry and London. They are not. The Scottish
  86
  workers are just as amenable to new production processes as are the industrial workers in the rest of the United Kingdom, or in European countries.
  There is one very serious problem that I want my hon. Friend to take note of. We all want to modernise Britain. The Labour Government were returned on the basis of a slogan to that effect. But modernising industry can be a very expensive and difficult business. I am not going to mention the firms by name, although most people will know what their names are, but two firms have large plants in Scotland. They are dynamic plants, and they are in the process of considerable development—or they could be. They are programming their production. They are programming specialised techniques to a specialised computer. They are entirely in the hands of half-a-dozen men and if these half-a-dozen men fail to turn up for maintenance or service, 7,000 men cannot work, as the whole of the production line is programmed through these computers. There are only two companies making computers, and the computers which they make are not interchangeable. Each is a unique system of programming. There are only two; a firm takes either one or the other.
  Let it not be forgotten that we are talking about new techniques applying to old industries, for the old industries will not disappear. They are industries to which we want to apply the modern techniques of flow production. Manufacturers will be reluctant to put down vast capital if, having put it down to employ the latest techniques, they are in danger of being completely in the grip of one manufacturer, a producer of a computer. Most of these computers are hired. The two of which I am speaking are hired from a company which provides the mechanics and the experts to service these machines.
  I suggest that if we want to drive forward in modernising British industry, then the Board of Trade or the Ministry of Technology should acquire this process—not necessarily the manufacturing concern; for it would be a greater safeguard to the investor and to the work people in industry if these new devices, where they are not purchased outright, could be hired through the Board of Trade.
  Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: Would not the hon. Member agree that it has been the case for many years in the motor-car industry that many firms are totally dependent on one firm for a particular component? There is nothing new in this. It has gone on for years.
  Mr. Bence: That is not quite true. I admit that there are some firms in this country which manufacture almost exclusively for the motor industry. No doubt the hon. Member is thinking of Lucas's. But each of the motor groups have their subsidiaries and each have their associated companies through which they get their products. Fords, B.M.C. and Rootes all have their associates.
  I was about to pass to the latest effort by B.M.C. to acquire Pressed Steel. I think that this is a very dangerous merger. For many years there were two of the largest car body producers in Europe—Fisher and Ludlow of Birmingham and Pressed Steel. The British Motor Corporation acquired Fisher and Ludlow a few years ago and took into the B.M.C. group this major competitor to Pressed Steel as an indpendent body producer. Now the B.M.C. has taken in Pressed Steel. It is significant that Fisher and Ludlow manufactured bodies for Standards of Coventry and that not long after B.M.C. had acquired Fisher and Ludlow, who manufactured almost exclusively for Standards, Standards went down.
  Pressed Steel in Scotland are manufacturing largely for the Rootes Group in Scotland. I think that this merger is a retrograde step. It is wrong that the whole technique of cold drawing and body components now passes almost exclusively into the hands of the Ford Motor Company of Dagenham, through Briggs Bodies, and the British Motor Corporation, through Pressed Steel and Fisher and Ludlow, the two great competitors which have been merged with B.M.C.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House talk about monopolies. It is a very dangerous situation that Rootes, a great British competitor of B.M.C., will have to go to B.M.C. for their bodies for the Hillman Imp. The Board of Trade should watch this very closely because it is inimical to expansion in Scotland especially at the Linwood plant.
  Hon. Members opposite have spoken about how we started last October. In
  88
  my view we inherited what I hope is the highest point of migration of skilled labour from Scotland which we have had for many years. I remember the Scots coming down in the 1920's. I do not know whether the flood was as fast between 1951 and 1965 as it was between 1926 and 1935. It was pretty fast then. The figures I have for population moving out of Scotland is that 28,000 a year moved over the last ten years. When we tried to get moving in Scotland after last October we found a shortage of skilled labour even in the old traditional industries. In every industry in Scotland there is a shortage of skilled labour which makes it impossible to employ a large force of unskilled labour.
  The major employment in some of the new industries will be not perhaps of the fully skilled craft labour which we knew in the past but labour which has had some precise training and labour which has had training over a very long period. Looking at the figures over the last few years, one sees that productivity in Scotland has risen from 102, taking 1958 as 100, to 124 in 1964, an improvement of about 23 per cent. in productivity. The labour force employed has risen in the same industries by only 7 per cent. This means that if we were to take up all the labour available in Scotland in the productive processes the capital investment necessary would be phenomenal—hundreds of millions of pounds. Great capital is needed to employ a hundred workers in the modern technological processes.
  I was glad to see on television recently—for the first time since I have been in Scotland—a short film from the Department in Edinburgh pointing to the advantages of the teaching profession. If there is anything we need especially in Scotland it is more social amenities, more schools and more teachers. The right hon. Member for Argyll said that he hoped there would be no cuts in capital expenditure in Scotland, and he mentioned the whole field of investment in Scotland in which he said there had been no cuts. He did not mention schools. Every year for the last five years there has been a cut in every school building programme of every local authority in Scotland. We are in great danger of paying for that.
  We had cuts in investment in the last five years until, when we tried to expand

  89
  after 1964, we found a shortage of cement. We are building advance factories, but we are short of skilled labour and cement because of the exodus from Scotland in the last ten years. Of the 30,000 who have gone, no doubt 6,000 or 7,000 were skilled men. When they leave we can no longer employ unskilled workers, and they leave, too. We also lose the links between manufacturers and customers. We are doing everything we can to direct cement and raw material back to Scotland by the initiative and drive being shown by the present Secretary of State.
  Many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate so I will curtail my remarks and speak finally about the new town of Cumbernauld and redundancy in the Burgh of Clydebank, particularly at the Singer Sewing Machine factory there. As soon as a firm in Scotland, particularly if it employs skilled men, announces redundancies, firms from south of the Border come in and promise the men jobs in England with additional inducements like taking their families to see the homes in which they would live, the payment of all removal costs and so on. This has been happening in Scotland for years, although I agree that it is impossible to pass legislation to stop people from working wherever they wish or to prevent them from leaving one area to live in another.
  The failure of successive Governments for many years to take action to solve Scotland's economic problems is mainly responsible for this. At the new town of Cumbernauld people are threatened with a curtailed bus service. Not only has there been a diversification of the railway there—from Buchanan Street to Queen Street, which will have serious repercussions on the people of the town—but now a cut in bus services has been threatened and this, if it comes about, will create many difficulties.
  I am frequently shocked when I hear some of the things said by hon. Gentlement opposite and read certain articles in the newspapers by industrial and City correspondents about the affairs and prospects of Scotland. Articles appearing in the Scotsman and Glasgow Herald, on the other hand, frequently show that in the central belt and other parts of Scotland there is tremendous faith in the future. A great deal of investment is being made in plant and machinery by
  90
  some of the largest businesses north of the Border and John Brown's is prepared to spend millions of pounds on the Clyde. Many other well-know companies are willing to place a great deal of money and technical expertise at the disposal of existing firms in Scotland to enable them to manufacture parts for many industries, notably the motor industry.
  People too frequently plead for branch factories to go from England to Scotland, but I am not all that enamoured of that idea. I appeal to the Government to initiate discussions with the three main motor manufacturers in Scotland—perhaps the Government could help in this—with the idea of helping the older industrial units north of the Border, some of which are declining because of the declining demand for their products.
  Many consumer durables, particularly motor car components, could be made by these firms, which could either retool or rejig for the manufacturing of such parts or could produce other consumer durables in addition to the goods which they have been traditionally making. It may be better to go in for this sort of development rather than to continually ask people like Wilmot Breeden, Hardy Spicers and others to set up branch factories in Scotland. We should aim more at inspiring—and by "inspiring" I mean by giving assistance of all kinds—the existing Scottish firms to go in for the production of articles which are in constant demand, particularly car components. If this were done many of the difficulties and some of the friction which today exists in Scottish industry would disappear.
  6.25 p.m.
  Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I hope that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) will forgive me if I do not comment on all the remarks he made, particularly about the motor car industry, because I do not possess the inside knowledge of that industry which he obviously possesses. I join with him in deprecating those who tend to build up to an unrealistic height the industrial troubles which we have in Scotland. Our record for good industrial relations is extremely good and when troubles—which, of course, arise from time to time—are blown up out of all proportion to

  91
  what they are that merely hinders the efforts of those who are trying to attract industry to Scotland.
  Industries which have moved away from the central belt and have gone to the East Coast—Fife, and further north to Angus and Aberdeenshire—have found an extraordinarily good reputation among the local workforce for good industrial relations. Firms which have been established in Scotland from overseas, such as the Euclid branch of General Motors at Peterhead, have found a wonderful record of industrial relations.
  From what has been said in the debate today it is obvious that in our discussions of the economic problems of Scotland there is a danger of over-generalising, particularly when we speak of the health of the industrial economy of Scotland. Although things are booming in certain parts of England, particularly in the South-East, the Government are, nevertheless, criticised by those who live in areas which are not booming. The same applies in Sotland. Although the central belt—on which most of the discussion has concentrated—is doing quite well, we are right to criticise the Government on behalf of the remoter areas which are not prospering to nearly the same extent. If we do not register this criticism there is a danger that any Government will bask in a sense of complacency while parts of the country, such as the North-East, the Highlands and Borders are shivering outside in the cold.
  The generalisation which is often made in debates was shown clearly in some of the debates we had in the Scottish Grand Committee on certain aspects of Scottish industry in recent weeks. I will give some examples, drawn from the discussion we had of the fishing industry, with which I am particularly concerned from a constituency point of view. The general expression of view when discussing that industry was that everything in the garden was lovely. This is not so, particularly for certain sections of the shellfish industry. When I have talked to the Scottish Office about the difficulties of this industry I have been told that things are booming. That is said because one section of the industry is booming—that which deals in the luxury trade end of it—
  92
  lobsters and scampi, the Norway lobster. However, other aspects of the shellfish industry, particularly the crab section, are not nearly so healthy.
  Sections of the shellfish industry which rely on the ordinary lobster, and the Norway lobster are not in the same economic position as the sections which depend on crab fishing. When we consider the localities which depend on crab fishing we find that they are not doing nearly as well. Indeed, many men are leaving that part of the industry.
  During recent months several of my hon. Friends have been impressing on the Government the problem facing some of the remoter areas of Scotland in relation to the transportation of fish to the markets in England. We are often given the reply, "All you need do is co-operate and get together to hire vans from British Railways and thereby send full van-loads to the markets". We are told that by taking such action we will get economic rates for the transportation of fish.
  That sort of answer completely ignores the special problems of the industry. The section of the industry with which I am particularly concerned has up to now sent its produce to market by passenger train. In some cases, with rail closures, that will no longer be possible and in any case, even when stations are not closed, the rates are being pushed up too high, thus forcing up the costs. The answer which we get ignores the small consignments and variety of markets and cannot possibly apply in any practical sense to the people of these remoter areas.
  For example, our trade in salmon is very important, but a whole year's catch, including that from angling, would fill only about 150 railway wagons. That demonstrates how out of touch the Government can be when they give us this kind of answer. The increase in railway charges has meant that one relatively small concern in my constituency which processes fish has found its transport costs increased overnight by £3,000 a year. For Scotland as a whole that is not a great deal of money, but for the individual concern it can mean the difference between its survival and having to close the doors.
  When we also learn that in the district concerned it is one of only two major

  93
  employers of labour, we can appreciate the tremendous economic effects on the livelihood of everyone in the neighbourhood. These localised problems do not drastically affect the economy of Scotland as a whole, but they are vital to individual districts, small towns and villages, and can make the difference between their economic life and death.
  In Kincardineshire, I have the small village of Gourdon, where, in the last few weeks, because of bad fishing conditions and the transport difficulties I have outlined, five boats have been taken from the sea, and more than 30 men have left this livelihood. A few of the men have found employment elsewhere in the district, but a great many of them, particularly the energetic and enterprising, have joined the Merchant Navy. We do not wane that kind of drain if we can avoid it. I therefore urge the Government to think not only in terms of national problems, but in terms of villages and small communities. They must remember that it takes all these different parts to make up the whole.
  I support what has been said from this side about industry away from the central belt. I will not enlarge on the problems of the agricultural and fishing industries, because we have discussed them very fully in the Scottish Grand Committee. Nevertheless, we have to remember that they are not only important for their own sakes, but because of their service industries and the other types of employment that are dependent on them for their health.
  The textile industry, particularly that part based on jute, is also important to the North-East of Scotland. It's problems, and its adjustment to international competition, have been recognised in the designation of Dundee as a development district. As a result of Government policy over the last number of years a tremendous amount of diversification has taken place in the Dundee area, and I pay tribute to what has been done there.
  But that has not happened in other areas in Angus, Kincardineshire and up into Aberdeen where the problem is no less than that in Dundee. We have villages and small towns whose whole economy is utterly dependent on the health of the jute industry, but because those areas do not qualify for development grants under the Local Employ-
  94
  ment Act there is not the kind of diversification and the new industries coming in that would so greatly help their economy.
  Some individual firms in my constituency are showing considerable enterprise in trying out new processes and new fibres which are giving a greater variety and offering greater prospects for the future, but I ask the Government to show more concern for the jute and textile industry in areas outwith Dundee so as to help them to diversify their economy.
  Very often when discussing industry in Scotland, particularly away from the central belt, we talk far too much in terms of trying to bring in completely new industries but, as was pointed out in the White Paper on development last September, the kind of industries for which we want help in the North-East are those based on what we already have; in other words, industries based on agriculture and on fishing. In particular, I would mention the food processing industries.
  As transport costs go up, it is cheaper, and a great advantage, to be able to send food into England or overseas—and a good deal of Scottish food goes overseas—in processed form, as unit costs of transport are thereby automatically reduced. Already in the North-East we have processing plants for fish and meat. In my constituency, just south of Aberdeen, one of the national meat concerns has started constructing a meat-processing plant. That is the kind of development we all want to see, it helps other industry, it is a natural sort of industry, and the labour there is very adaptable to it.
  Away from the central belt it is not unemployment but depopulation that is the far greater problem. I do not intend to repeat the arguments advanced in the Scottish Grand Committee by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), and repeated this afternoon to some extent by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray), but, as the Secretary of State knows, and certainly as the President of the Board of Trade knows, over the last nine months I have been doing all I can to bring home to them how serious the depopulation is in these areas.

  95
  It is important that the Government should act before it is too late. I have heard a lot of lip-service paid to the problem, and a lot of sympathy and correspondence and meetings with Ministers, but very little appears to be done. I appreciate that legislation may be needed to alter the designation of development districts, but I must warn the Government that if action is not soon taken it may be too late. Once depopulation goes beyond a certain stage, it is very difficult to get people to return, and the cost of trying to build up an area again could be far greater than that of preventing the rot from setting in. The cost of prevention would be far less than the cost of cure.
  In conclusion, I would say that the treatment of depopulation is not just a matter of bringing in new industries, but of helping and encouraging existing industries. Industries in these areas of depopulation outwith the development districts do not have the same encouragement to expand when they want to. There are two firms in my constituency, both of which I have mentioned to the Secretary of State, each of which has developed new processes but each is a branch of a national concern. When it is desired to put those developments into production the Boards have the choice of letting the development take place in North-East Scotland or in branch factories elsewhere in Great Britain. It is quite natural that the managements will want to site the production work where they will get development grants for the buildings and for the installation of the equipment and machinery. We are thereby missing out on getting this kind of development; it is going to areas where firms get the benefit of grants.
  Training is another problem that faces such firms. One of the greatest difficulties experienced by a machine tool firm in my constituency is that of having to train labour to the skill required because the necessary skilled labour is not available in the surrounding district. Out of a work force of about 380, it has to take in each year eight to 10 apprentices. The National Cash Register firm in Dundee, where there are other firms of a similar type, with a labour force of about 4,000 only requires to take in about 25 apprentices each year.
  96
  The reason this firm in my constituency has to take so many apprentices every year is that it loses many and does not gain from the same type of industry in the area in the same proportion as it loses. When people leave such a firm after apprenticeship they rarely come back to it. This firm has a particularly good record of labour relations. The difficulty has nothing to do with labour relations, but to the fact that the firm does not gain reciprocally from other firms in the area.
  That is why I hope that under the Industrial Training Act and the board which has been set up for the industry firms of this type which have to bear an unfair burden of training costs may be helped with more than the proportion of contributions which they pay to the board. That would be of great assistance to firms of the type I have mentioned.
  Finally, I mention the question of technological industry in Scotland. Over the last few years the record under the previous Government has been a particularly fine one. In the four counties where these new industries have chiefly been set up—Fife, Midlothian, Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire—it is worth while to relate that one in every 20 employed in manufacturing industry is working on computers, automation, electronics and allied types of industry. That is a tremendous credit to the previous Government and proof that their policies are bearing fruit. It is also worth while reflecting that Scotland of all the countries in the world is the third most important maker of business machines and that it is creeping up to second place.
  All this is a tremendous tribute to what the last Government achieved in building up this new kind of industry in Scotland. Not only is it a tribute to that Government, but also to the people who have come to Scotland to build up these industries. I mention especially those who have come back to Scotland from Canada and other countries, such as Dr. Pringle, of Nuclear Enterprises in Edinburgh. There is a great need to consolidate this industry and build it up still further because it has not yet reached a stage of development in which it can generate new industry of its own accord. This is where Government help can do a great deal. Through defence contract work, the Government can have a great

  97
  influence on the development of this type of industry.
  Because of that many of us have been disappointed about the cancellation of the TSR2. Defence considerations aside, in Scotland we lost nearly 1,000 jobs at Ferranti's for people working on that type of project. When putting new defence contracts into Scotland I asked the Government to bear in mind the needs of Scotland for this type of industry. I welcome very much the development of the D.S.I.R. in computers, which will give an impetus to this kind of industry. One of the greatest weaknesses of our new technological industry in Scotland so far has been that it is chiefly based on the assembly of components in machines or on the manufacture of components themselves and not enough has been done on research and development within the industry itself so that it can generate more industry and employment.
  In conclusion, I urge that we should have closer links with the universities. Far too much work so far in industry and universities has been separated. Many people in the science departments of universities get into an ivory tower atmophere and out of touch with what is happening in industry. If we could have closer co-ordination between industry and the universities there could be a much quicker application of basic research from the laboratory to the shop floor of the factory. This would also give a greater opportunity within Scotland for the employment of graduates from universities many of whom have to go south to find work. There could be scope for this in the new universities of Strathclyde, Stirling and Dundee. Every advantage should be taken of exploiting links between universities and industry.
  One thing which is needed if we are to go forward in future has been touched on by other hon. Members who have spoken in this debate. That is good transport links with places elsewhere in Britain and overseas. I especially mention air transport links, because the technological industries of which I have been speaking use air transport a great deal. The products may be small in size, but they are of very high value. If they do not have good air transport there will be a discouragement to expansion of these industries.
  98
  Good air transport is important not only for sending out their products, but also for conveying those working in the industries. In the new industries concerned with electronics, computers, research and new developments there is a very fast rate of movement. Men working in them have to be able to get about quickly and to keep up to date with what is going on elsewhere.
  In a time such as this, as many hon. Members who use air travel regularly will know, it is almost impossible to get a booking on a plane. It is a discouragement to this kind of industry when a booking cannot be made at short notice. Another hindrance is the lack of decision about what is to happen to the airport at Dundee. Nothing concrete seems to be decided and until we know something concrete there is a positive disincentive to attract the type of industry we want in the area.
  There is also the question of having a second runway at Turnhouse. The Minister of Aviation has given some statistics, but I believe that at the time this matter was reviewed the wind happened to be in the right direction and more planes were able to land there. If statistics were taken over a longer period it would be found that the disruption of the service is greater than has been suggested. It is not just a matter of saying, "Yes, this is a good thing for the future"; we want definite word of when this project will go forward.
  I urge the Government to think not only in terms of Central Scotland and of the advance factories spoken about by the President of the Board of Trade. I want them to think also of areas outside Central Scotland, especially of the smaller industries and firms which are scattered throughout the countryside. I ask them to think not only in terms of industry, but of how universities can co-operate and how transport links and air services can be improved over the whole field. Only then shall we see the full use made of the resources which Scotland has.
  6.49 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: I was about to congratulate the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) when he said "in conclusion" ten minutes ago, but things

  99
  have happened since. I would have compared his speech favourably with that of the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), who has, because of the length of the hon. Gentleman's speech, left the Chamber, so I will not elaborate on that. The hon. Gentleman's speech contained many constructive ideas about his own area. It also contained one profound blunder which has been running through the speeches made by hon. Members opposite. I refer to their failure to understand the real nature and depth of the malaise facing Scottish industry and the Scottish economy. Anybody who says that the White Paper on Scotland was a satisfactory example of planning has no concept of the real problem facing Scotland.
  I have put together some figures for the guidance of hon. Members opposite. I hope that in the process of giving them something will rub off on to my own Front Bench. First, although between 1951 and 1960 the gross national product rose by 59 per cent. in Scotland, it rose by 70 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole. The point is that the gap which has existed is increasing. We have talked a great deal about the "have" and "have-not" nations and the underdeveloped countries, but exactly the same thing is happening in relation to our own under-developed regions: the gap is still steadily increasing.
  Secondly, our growth rate was at one time comparable with that of the United Kingdom. Up to about 1954 Scotland's growth rate was comparable with that of the United Kingdom. Since then we have remained very far below. Between 1954 and 1960 our growth rate was only 9 per cent. That of the United Kingdom over that period was 18 per cent. The rate of growth for the rest of the United Kingdom doubled as compared with Scotland. This is a very real malaise which cannot possibly be answered by a piecemeal, rag-bag throwing together of projects. The speech today of the right hon. Member for Argyll reminded me of his own plan a year ago in the White Paper on Scotland. It was a throwing together of previously delivered promises.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have read the White Paper issued last year which
  100
  pointed out that in the first quarter of 1964 industrial output in Scotland had risen by 9 per cent.
  Mr. Buchan: This is true. However, the failure to keep pace with development in the manufacturing industries is the most serious aspect of this. Of course output has improved over the last year or two. I advise the hon. Gentleman to have a look at the report of the Glasgow University Research Unit which deals with this matter in much more detail than hon. Members opposite have devoted to it today.
  The problem is, to bring in the magic term, the growth industries. Up to two or three years ago we were developing at a growth rate of just under 2 per cent. Obviously we will need to attain a growth rate of about 6 per cent. in Scotland if we are to remain comparable with the rent of the United Kingdom. Emigration has been mentioned. There has been talk of productivity. But there are also the social effects of this on the economic position, the earning position of our people.
  Hon. Members opposite have expressed satisfaction with the White Paper of last year and with the bringing of the motor car industry to Scotland, but it is well to keep certain figures in mind. The Ministry of Labour Gazette shows that for October 1964 the wages paid to workers engaged in motor vehicle manufacture in Scotland were 63s. 4d. a week less than the national average. In the Midlands they were 28s. 4d. above the national average, which makes a difference of over £4. These are the social figures to be borne in mind when considering the Scottish problem.
  There is therefore a deep malaise. It will not be solved, either, by the type of story we heard today from my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, good as it was. I was delighted to hear of the number of advance factories. I was delighted to hear of the increased investment. I was delighted to hear that the Board of Trade is now responsible for £23 million worth of industrial sites and factories. But this reflects only the equivalent of one new private industry. Rootes itself spent £23 million on one factory. Therefore, we cannot take much satisfaction from what my right hon. Friend said here.

  101
  The problem will not be solved until there is a proper concept of planning. This will mean, as the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns said, a proper approach to the technological question in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be very pleased that in four counties one in four of the workers in manufacturing industries were involved in computerised industry. However, we are still seeing a steady drift from Scotland of our best graduates. In 1962 only six of the 43 honours graduates in science from Glasgow University, which is the most locally based of all the Scottish universities, got their first job in Scotland. We are exporting the very best of our young people to the south.
  We are reaching a climactic moment now, because with the expected rundown—at any rate, the promised rundown—on defence expenditure, one would presume that our technological resources would be moving over to civil expenditure. It is therefore, as the Scottish Council correctly states, the moment when we should be applying this in the interests of regional development and regional planning. If we do not use this moment, the existing research institutes, in the interests of speed, will be used to develop civil technological projects. We must use this moment to bring our technological resources in for regional development.
  We need technology, not only in new industries in Scotland, but in the traditional industries. We have heard much about confidence in shipbuilding. I hope that is right. The order books are very full. However, for the year ending March, 1965, orders are down by ½ million tons from the order books as they were in March, 1964. The order books are very full at the moment, but the new orders have dropped by ½ million tons over 12 months. Therefore, we should not be too confident. Of all our traditional industries, this is where research and technology must be applied.
  The problem we are facing in competition with Japan is not so much cheap labour. That shibboleth can be knocked on the head. It is the cost-effective of the labour, the proper utilisation of the labour by technological backing. A simple illustration shows this. Britain produces about 40 honours graduates in naval architecture a year. Of these about 20 come from overseas. In other words,
  102
  we return to the shipbuilding industry about 20 honours graduates in naval architecture per year. Japan produces 260, ten times as many as we retain, and uses them at all levels in the shipyard and not only at the planning level—hull design and construction. We do not spend nearly enough research money on aspects other than hull design and steam turbines, which use so much of our research money. We should establish a proper academic research unit on transportation, not only to study the problems of hull design and propulsion, but new forms of shipping altogether, such as what have been called iron sampans.
  We must look very closely at the nature of our economic planning. This is where I would part company with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. It seems that for far too long we have thought that the main requirement is the infrastructure—the provision of infrastructure—the provision of roads and environments to induce industry to go to a region and the provision of subsidies to help it to go there. What is needed before this kind of economic planning is industrial economic planning, working out what kind of industries are necessary, not only to provide jobs in themselves but to provide growth around them.
  It may be that the solution for Scotland is a new car company like Fords. But it is also true that the motor car companies which have already come have not properly generated fresh industry around them. We may be looking at this the wrong way. If we look at it only from the infrastructure point of view, we shall continue to look at it the wrong way. We have inherited the concept that we can spend money on roads, advance factories and new communities, but for some reason we cannot open industries and run them ourselves. We are prepared to provide the infrastructure and the financial subsidy to private industry, but we still fight shy of the beginnings of new publicly owned industry ourselves. We must recognise that industry is an integral part of social life, for which the Government are responsible. We have to make a very rapid start on publicly owned, research-based industry in Scotland.
  I welcome the suggestion for closer contact with the universities. I extend

  103
  the suggestion. I should like to see permission given to the University of Strathclyde not only to be involved in development research projects for industry but to be given the contracts to begin the production units and carry on the development itself. This, I think, should be done. It is rather on the lines of what the M.I.T. in Massachusetts has achieved in the Boston Valley. We need technology and a new concept of how to use it.
  We also need to provide economic tools, because, despite the existence of the Scottish Statistical Office, we do not know nearly enough. For example, we do not know the input/output equation and how much any investment in one particular region will give in return, within that region, in terms of our gross domestic product, and so on.
  I turn now to a question raised by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence). Renfrewshire is one area in Scotland where we have the beginnings of a proper industrial contact, but it is only the basis. It takes the form of the two linked factories of Roots and Pressed Steel at Linwood, where the assembly line of one is geared, timed and computerised to the car body production of the other. However, what has happened in the last week is that a competing car firm, B.M.C., are now trying to take over Pressed Steel, and we are left with the dangerous situation that one car-producing firm is having its bodies produced by a factory which may be under the direct control of a competing firm; and, remember, it is the one passenger-vehicle car factory in Scotland. I want to ask the Board of Trade to deal with the question, because it is not only monopoly, although that is dangerous enough, but a monopoly of a particularly dangerous kind. A whole new community depends upon it. My constituents are living in a new town which depends on the success of those factories, and I for one will not tolerate any take-over which will affect the people in my constituency in this way.
  If private industry cannot solve the problem with the guidance of the Board of Trade, then sterner public measures may be necessary. I would like someone from the Board of Trade to reply on the point before the night is out. It
  104
  may be that the public involvement will be some form of public control. It must be urgently reviewed by the Board of Trade, and I look forward to receiving their answer and getting some satisfaction on it before the debate finishes.
  7.4 p.m.
  Mr. David Steel: I have followed with interest what might be described as the lecture given by the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan). On the last occasion on which I heard him speak, he was, by force of time, limited to four minutes. However, he has made up for it today. I have followed some of his arguments with interest, particularly those relating to his constituency. However, I would like to turn to a slightly different tack and deal with the Scottish Development Department Report for 1964, which I notice some hon. Members clutching.
  Last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) described the 1963 Report as a
  "rag bag of odd statistics affecting Scotland thrown together in a hotch-potch of statistics".
  This year's Report is no different. It may be that as three-quarters of it covers the time of the previous Government, no change has yet been brought into being. But I would like to know whether in future the Reports of the Scottish Development Department might be about Scottish development. Last year's contained the interesting information that the attention of local authorities had been drawn in a circular by the Department to the Public Lavatories (Turnstiles) Act, 1963. This year we are not let down and are assured that another circular draws attention to the need to provide washing facilities in public conveniences. All that is very interesting and laudable, but it has no relevance to Scottish development as such. It may be that some reorganisation of the Department itself is in mind, in which case we would like to hear about it.
  This year's Report does not deal, for example, with questions of industry or transport at all, other than roads. I hope the Secretary of State will have something to say tonight about the development of light aircraft and helicopters and say if he can add anything further to what he has told us in the Scottish Grand Committee about his negotiations with the

  105
  Ministry of Transport on the various railway closures still pending on Scotland, because these seem to be of prime importance to Scotland.
  There is one matter on which I would like to dwell for a moment, and that is the question of the provision of hospital facilities. I have raised the matter once or twice with particular reference to the need in my own constituency for a new hospital. However, it is not just a constituency need, but a general need in Scotland. The last Government shelved the responsibility for the provision of hospital development on to the regional hospital boards, but that is not good enough. If we are to have hospital development, the Government's own decisions must govern the decisions of the Boards, because their decisions are very much tied by what the Government themselves decide in the very important economic field. There is the feeling that by passing over responsibility to the regional boards, the Government escape from their own responsibilities. I regard hospital facilities as one of the vital factors in any comprehensive regional development that may be taking place in Scotland.
  The President of the Board of Trade dealt almost exclusively with progress in Central Scotland, and he assured us that the Secretary of State would be talking about the other areas. I hope he may be able to mention this particular point.
  On page 29 of the Scottish Development Department's Report for 1964, we have a reference to industrialised house building. That is a matter of prime importance. We have still a higher percentage of unfit houses in Scotland than in England. The rate of house building in the last period of the previous Government, between 1959 and 1964, was lower than in their previous term of office, from 1955 to 1959. With the building industry being fully stretched, industrialised house building is of particular importance to Scotland. What the Report does not say and what I would like to know, is whether any attempts are being made not only to provide industrialised house building for Scotland but to manufacture the units for house building in Scotland. Here is an industry which Scotland ought to latch on to quickly. Many of our old industries have left derelict premises which, if used, could
  106
  provide the amount of space required for the manufacture of housing units. If we are to make a serious attack on the housing situation in Scotland, we might at the same time make use of an industry providing new employment and new techniques in Scotland.
  On page 20 of the Report, reference is made to the development plan for Jedburgh as being one example of how the Scottish Development Department has been working to produce local development plans and to preserve amenities in Scotland. It is an excellent plan, but it will remain only a plan on paper unless some cash can be provided. Under Section 6 of the 1962 Housing Act, the Secretary of State has powers to give additional funds to local authorities where they require to make additional expenditure on local authority housing in order to provide a high standard of amenity in places of historical or architectural interest. In the Jedburgh Development Plan, clearly the town council hope to make use of the Secretary of State's powers under the Act, and they have applied accordingly. However, I am a little alarmed to hear that the Scottish Development Department have turned down a similar application from the burgh of Selkirk. I have written to the Secretary of State, but I hope that tonight he will give me an encouraging reply. While we want housing development, it is very important that in the ancient and historic burghs up and down Scotland we make use of existing legislation and encourage local authorities to develop and preserve amenities for the future by granting them the extra funds to produce higher standards of design and finish where necessary.
  We did not hear from the President of the Board of Trade—perhaps it was not surprising—anything about devolution to Scotland. I would have hoped that the new Government would perhaps be rather more sympathetic to Liberal policy, at least in principle, on the importance of devolution to Scotland, and that as much power as possible should be concentrated in Scotland. It is interesting to note that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, one of the last focal points of the expression of public opinion in Scotland, has come out in favour of devolving more power

  107
  to Scotland. As indeed did the Church and Nation report. Yet we see no sign of this devolution taking place. We see instead what I regard as the most regrettable decision about the location of the headquarters of the Forestry Commission, which, of all things, would be suitable for location in Scotland, but which are to be situated in the south in England.
  No doubt, if we had had more power residing in Scotland than there was, or is, the work of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electricity Board would not have been held up in the way it has been. The lack of decision is extremely disturbing. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) has in the last six months pressed the Secretary of State over this, and it is the view of my hon. Friends on this bench and myself that the success of the old established scheme in Galloway, has shown that capital investment in hydro-electricity is a most worth-while investment which will give us a beneficial return at the end of the day.
  We heard something from the President of the Board of Trade about the three bases of the Government's policy in Scotland. He said, first, that the Government believed in national economic planning and that this would have to take into account Scotland's needs. But here again, lack of any power devolved upon Scotland has led in the past to an economic policy being pursued for Great Britain as a whole, and absolutely contrary to the policy required at that particular time in Scotland. There is still no sign that the policy of the present Government will be any different. He also mentioned the question of public offices being transferred to Scotland. I have mentioned for example the Forestry Commission's offices. They have not been transferred to Scotland, contrary to the declared public policy, which has not been pursued.
  I should like to ask the Secretary of State to elaborate a little tonight on what he has already told us of the work of the Planning Council for Scotland. He mentioned in the last debate which we had that he was considering—or they were considering, I am not quite sure which—setting up ad hoc local committees. It was not quite clear from
  108
  his statement whether this means that the planning council itself is to divide into smaller units or whether it is going to have in the areas locally drawn committees to advise the Council or sections of the Council. If it is the last method, which, I take it, it is, then I would ask him whether there is any possibility, in the composition of the local committees, of his considering that they ought to include the local Members of Parliament for the areas. It would be valuable to bring the Members of Parliament, regardless of party, into the work of committees considering the economic planning of the regions for which they hold some responsibilities.
  I do not raise it as a most urgent point, but I was a little disturbed that the Vice-Chairman of the Planning Council, Mr. Middleton, recently visited my constituency and made various statements and I did not know about it until after he had gone. I make no complaint about this, but I think it a situation which might be amended. When Ministers visit areas they inform the respective Members of Parliament of their visits, and I think there will be some danger to the successful machinery of the Planning Council if Members of Parliament are left out of all discussions.
  I should like to hear from the Secretary of State tonight that he and his colleagues will continue their policy which they have been pursuing of visiting the different parts of Scotland. I have noted them, and I am waiting to see when the right hon. Gentleman will turn up in my area. Certainly, he and his colleagues have been visiting many parts, and I think it is useful that they should see for themselves the different problems in the different parts of Scotland, and I hope they will continue to do so.
  Finally I want to turn to what I think should be an important matter, and that is what the Opposition have to say about Scottish development. I say it is important because none of us can tell for certain when there is to be a General Election, and I think we are entitled to know what the official Opposition would do in relation to Scottish development if they were to find themselves back in power. They are asking us tonight to vote a reduction in the salary of the Secretary of State. I take it, therefore, that if the right hon.

  109
  Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) were back in office he would pursue some different policy.
  I listened to his speech. He gave us many examples of what other people had said last year, but the only positive suggestions he put forward were repetitions of and quotations from what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal Party said in the debate last year, and when he had come to the end of his selection of references to other hon. Members speeches, to my surprise, he came to an end of his own speech. He did not give us a single positive policy of his own. He had nothing to say. Nothing at all was said about what the Conservative Party would do for Scotland if it found itself back in power. I would ask whoever from the Opposition is to sum up the debate to make clear what it is, if anything, the Conservative Party would do.
  My hon. and right hon. Friends and I have derived some amusement of late from the activities of the prospective Unionist candidates in our constituencies. I am bound to say that the Unionist Party in Scotland seems to have as much difficulty in organising its affairs as it had in running Scotland. For instance, one of my hon. Friends finds that he suddenly has no Unionist opponent at all, while another one finds he has two.
  The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Samuel Storey): Order. The hon. Member is getting far from the Estimates.
  Mr. Steel: I am grateful to you, Sir Samuel, for calling me back from the path of temptation.
  However, what is relevant is, what is the Conservative Party's policy now for Scotland? I read a very interesting report about this in The Scotsman, about a new policy for Scotland produced by four young Unionist candidates—the new voice of the party in Scotland, presumably. Among their suggestions was that the definition of development districts had been drawn far too narrowly, was far too confined, and that it should be extended to include areas of depopulation. Is this the policy of the Conservative Party now in Scotland? Is that party now really saying what the Liberals said in 1959—when we moved an Amendment to the Local Employment Act here,
  110
  which was supported by the Labour Party at the time? Are they saying that what they said in 1959 was a mistake? Is that what they are saying? If so—
  Mr. Anthony Stodart Mr. Anthony Stodart (Edinburgh, West) rose—
  Mr. Steel: There will be an opportunity for you to reply at the end of the debate.
  The Deputy-Chairman: There will be no opportunity for me to reply at the end of the debate.
  Mr. Steel: I beg your pardon, Sir Samuel. There will be an opportunity for the Conservative Front Bench to reply.
  Or is the policy not that? Is it the policy which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in his book published recently said—that, of course, all this talk about regional planning was really a lot of nonsense and we should allow people to drift to where there were jobs? It is a point of view, but is that Conservative policy? It is no use dismissing—
  Mr. Buchan Mr. Buchan rose—
  Mr. Steel: No. I cannot give way.
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Steel: Let me finish this. It is no use dismissing this as the views of the right hon. Gentleman only, because in the Spectator last week the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) was saying that when the next election comes the policies of the Conservative Party must to a large extent be based upon the book of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. Is this true in Scotland? I think we ought to have an answer to this sort of question. Now I will give way.
  Mr. Buchan: The hon. Member is putting into an embarrassing position whoever will wind up for the Opposition in view of the presence behind him of the Chairman of the 1922 Committee, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray).
  Mr. Steel: I had not noticed the right hon. Gentleman was there. Since he is, I would say that I enjoyed his speech and agreed entirely with it.

  111
  Now I have rather lost track of what I was saying, thanks to that intervention.
  I put a number of questions to the Secretary of State and to the spokesman for the Official Opposition. There is no doubt that people in Scotland are still interested in the plans which the Labour Party is hatching. Most people in Scotland have accepted that the Government found themselves in a difficult situation when they came to office, but the hard luck story will not last forever. The people of Scotland are interested in their plans and in what the Secretary of State has to say. They are also interested to hear whether the Conservative Party has learned anything in opposition and whether the policy which it is working out really is a new policy for Scotland and whether the Conservatives realise that no improvement in party organisation in Scotland and no change of leadership will affect Scotland without a change of policy.
  We have watched with approval the passage of the legislation for the setting up of a Highland Development Board. The Government have still a great deal to do for many parts of Scotland. They have been in office for only a short time, but we should like to spur them on. We have tried to spur them on by our criticisms and hopes. In a further effort to spur them on, we on the Liberal benches will support them in the Lobby tonight.
  7.22 p.m.
  Mr. William Hamilton: I was glad to hear the last remark of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel). He was a little unfair to the former Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble). The right hon. Gentleman, as of this moment, is labouring under very great strain. He is without a leader, he is without a policy, and he had to say something. We therefore had 20 minutes of bellyaching from the right hon. Gentleman, with not one iota of alternative policy put before us. He talked about the Government not having done anything in nine months. One thing which they have done, but which the right hon. Gentleman did not mention, has been to put well on the way to the Statute Book the Highland and Islands Development (Scotland) Bill, which is probably the most Socialistic Measure and, therefore,
  112
  the most realistic Measure which has been passed in this century for the benefit of Scotland.
  The right hon. Member for Argyll referred a great deal to the remarks made in the debate last year. I also want to refer to certain remarks made in that debate by the favourite, as I think him, for the Tory leadership stakes, the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath). He then talked about 40,000 jobs being in the pipeline. This was the pre-election battle cry, but apparently the people of Scotland did not appreciate very much what the Conservatives had done for Scotland during the previous 13 years, or they did not know it, or it had not been done, or it was a case of too little, too late. Anyhow, the people of Scotland gave right hon. Members opposite a decisive answer in that election.
  The right hon. Member for Bexley said that 38,000 of those jobs were in the development districts. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade this afternoon shrank from using that expression, "the pipeline". In the course of the year that expression became a dirty joke in Scottish debates. References to it were almost invariably greeted with jeering cynicism, and in the course of the election this cynicism and doubt seemed to be confirmed at Glenrothes, when the Cadco project collapsed.
  I should like to say a few words about that project because it is of more than local importance. Since the project collapsed two inquiries have been going on, one conducted by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, and the other by the Board of Trade on the question whether the Companies Act had been infringed. I believe that the Under-Secretary's inquiries are now complete and that the report of the legal inquiry is now in the hands of the President of the Board of Trade.
  Although I have no means of knowing it, I should not be surprised at all if criminal proceedings against certain individuals result from the Board of Trade inquiry. In any case, I should like to know at the end of the debate what the state of play is at the moment and whether, in fact, the report of the inquiry is in the hands of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and what action he proposes to take on it.

  113
  I think that my hon. Friend's inquiries are completed and I want to direct a few questions at him. What progress is being made towards the disposal of the piggeries and the factories? Can my hon. Friend give any estimate of the loss of public money involved in the project? What steps have been or are to be taken to prevent a recurrence of this kind of situation? Has my hon. Friend established any departmental responsibility? I was about to say "irresponsibility", because I think that that is the apt word.
  I have strong reasons for thinking that undue risks were taken by the Scottish Development Department for the purpose of serving the purely political and electoral purposes of the last Government. They wanted to tell the country that an enormous project, with 2,000 jobs, was to be set up in Glenrothes and they took undue risk with public money. I am merely asking my hon. Friend questions. I have always had suspicions from the beginning that there were attempts to sweep certain things under the carpet. I hope that my hon. Friend will give a categorical assurance that no such covering up will be done, both with the departmental inquiry conducted by my hon. Friend and the Board of Trade inquiry into certain aspects of the company's activities.
  Mr. Noble: I entirely agree with the hon. Member's hope that his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will not try to sweep anything under the carpet, but the hon. Member said that he had strong reasons for believing that the Scottish Development Department had used this as a method of promoting party political ends. This is a statement which should not go unchallenged in this Committee, because in my view the Scottish Development Department has been completely and absolutely impartial. It is not political and I am certain that the hon. Member's statement is untrue.
  Mr. Hamilton: I certainly withdraw any reflection on civil servants. It is quite improper for me to make any aspersions on them, but I make the aspersion on the right hon. Gentleman and his Government that they were responsible for taking risks with public money for party political purposes at a time when their political fortunes were at a very low ebb.
  Mr. Ian MacArthur: Shocking.
  Mr. Hamilton: We shall see.
  I leave that project and direct my remarks to the coal industry in Scotland in general and in Fife in particular. Our fears in central West Fife, and elsewhere in Scotland, were not allayed by the statement made by the Minister of Power on 1st July. He then said that £400 million of the Coal Board's capital debt was to be written off. This in itself was welcome and long overdue, because the industry had geared itself to an annual target figure of 240 million tons of coal whereas last year the production was rather less than 200 million tons. The statement by the Minister of Power was designed to enable the industry to speed up the closure of uneconomic pits without running the risk of increased prices, which would seriously injure the competitive position of the coal industry in the production of the nation's energy.
  The overall aim of the Government is quite clear, although it has never been specifically stated. There are deep suspicions that it is to secure an annual average production of less than 200 million tons over the entire industry. How much less than 200 million tons we do not know, but the indications are that it will be less, and that that target figure will be produced from fewer, more efficient, mechanised and profitable pits, presumably leading to increased wages, better morale, and a sense of confidence within the industry which is not very apparent at the moment.
  So far as it goes, this is an ambitious and in many ways laudable objective. Clearly, as a competitive trading nation we simply cannot afford to use any other than the cheapest sources of energy. But before it can be said with any certainty that one fuel is cheaper than another many factors must be taken into account. We do not just look at the cost per ton to the consumer and compare two lots of prices; we take into account a whole lot of other considerations. For example, if we assume that the coal industry must be run down on the basis of price to consumers we must calculate, somehow, the resulting social costs to mining communities—the cost of retraining men

  115
  who are declared redundant, or of moving them to other parts of Great Britain, or the question of redundancy payments.
  All these things must be taken into account. If we are to place increased reliance on imported oil we have to take into account not only the short-term but the long-term price; we have to take into account the effect on the balance of payments, the cost of military protection of overseas sources of supply, the strategic implications, in the case of war or military adventure, or political upheaval, in the sources of supply.
  Recently we read of the rapid development of power production from the advanced gas-cooled reactor. This poses an enormously serious problem for the future of the coal industry. The last Annual Report of the South of Scotland Electricity Board gave figures which showed that from 1955 to 1964 the electricity industry was the only consumer of coal in Scotland which had increased its purchases—from just over 3 million tons in 1955 to over 5½ million tons in 1964. It currently takes more than 27 per cent. of total Scottish coal production.
  The new Langannet Station, in Fife, will consume 6 million tons of coal a year when it is in full production in 1971, providing employment for 10,000 Scottish miners. This is the importance of the electricity industry to the coal industry. Mr. Norman Elliott, the Chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board, was reported—I believe in The Scotsman of 18th June, 1965—as saying that
  "on economic grounds his board were thinking in terms of nuclear-powered generation from 1970 onwards. Only political intervention at the highest level, or a completely unforeseen revolution in coalmining, can alter the dire and inevitable effects this will have on coal."
  The heading of that article was, "Scots Coal Industry May Be Doomed". Mr. Elliott went on to say that the Scottish electricity industry would still be consuming 10 million tons of Scottish coal in 1971, which will be two-thirds of total Scottish production, but that thereafter there would be a fall in the demand of the electricity industry for Scottish coal.
  In the meantime, presumably, gas will have been discovered in the North Sea—at least, I hope so. Much as I seek to defend the coal industry, I hope that we will discover cheaper sources of fuel, and
  116
  if we find them in the North Sea so much the better.
  But the obvious implications for coal are extremely serious. It will certainly mean a smaller industry, employing fewer men. The prospect for the mining communities in central West Fife will become particularly grave unless very urgent remedial action is taken now. Scotland has a disproportionately high share of the total number of uneconomic pits in Great Britain. Many of these pits are in central West Fife—in the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Adam Hunter), my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay) and myself.
  During the last few years the mining industry has received two hammer blows. First, two or three years ago we had the collapse of the Rothes project, on which great hopes had been placed. This was not through any fault of management; it was purely unforeseen geological difficulties which put paid to that project. More recently, again for geological reasons, there has been the imminent closure of the Bowhill Colliery, employing about 1,200 men.
  In that context I return to the statement of the Minister of Power on 1st July. He clearly anticipated some of the difficulties which must arise through an accelerated rate of pit closures. He announced that discussions were to take place between the Government and the coal industry
  "to provide special funds to speed the disappearance of uneconomic collieries."
  The right hon. Gentleman said that these funds were to be used
  "to accelerate the provision of alternative industrial developments in the areas mainly affected and also to assist the industry in meeting the social and human costs arising from this programme."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, 1st July, 1965; Vol. 715, c. 838–9.]
  The right hon. Gentleman promised a White Paper later—I do not know how much later—plus legislation, perhaps in the next Session, on the National Coal Board's borrowing powers.
  I want to put a few questions to which I hope we shall have answers, if not in this debate in a subsequent debate, or by letter from my right hon. Friend after consultations with the Minister of Power. First, will the funds to which my right hon. Friend referred be provided by the

  117
  Exchequer or by the Coal Board? I hope that they will be provided by the Exchequer. I hope that they will not be a charge on the industry because the social consequences of speeding up closures are a national responsibility which it would be unfair to place on the shoulders of the industry.
  Secondly what figure have the Government in mind when they talk about this special fund, and how will it be disbursed? What criteria will be used in sharing out as between one area and another? Thirdly, how can such funds accelerate the provision of "alternative industrial development", an expression which the Minister used? The Board of Trade alone has the statutory powers to encourage and steer industry to such areas. Have the Government in mind to arm the Board of Trade with additional powers, or are financial inducements to be offered to industrialists in addition to those for which the Board of Trade already has power?
  Fourthly, who is to assess the scale of the social and human costs involved? I hope that the assessment will be generous. Whenever a pit closes, the cry goes up that men will be absorbed in other pits in the area. Very often they are not. Even if they are, they are absorbed at very much lower wages. In any case, a man of 50 or over finds it extremely difficut to get another job. He is not mobile in terms either of getting a new job or of geographical mobility. These men, particularly the older men, ought to be treated on an extremely generous scale.
  I want also to touch on the subject of the clearance of derelict sites. There are many such sites in the industrial areas, sores of the capitalist era, when the owners turned the earth inside out and left the scars for the people to live with for the rest of their lives. We have a lot of them in Fife. Fife County Council has, I think, been one of the most progressive authorities in the United Kingdom in clearing derelict sites. At the moment, it gets an 85 per cent. grant for it. It was 100 per cent. under the Labour Government's legislation of 1948, and in the last few months there has been almost a promise that the grant will be restored to 100 per cent. It may not be opportune to do that at the moment, but I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider the desirability of doing this on a
  118
  differential basis, giving the 100 per cent. rate to areas like central West Fife, where the problem is most acute. I hope that he will consider that.
  The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) referred to improvements in air transport. We had a visit here by Mr. Robinson, of the Scottish Council, who referred to the importance of getting direct flights from Scotland to the Continent. He pointed out that there is only one direct flight from Glasgow to Paris, and no other direct flight at all. The President of the Board of Trade referred this afternoon to the vital importance of exports. According to Mr. Robertson, exports from Scotland to Europe are running at about £130 million a year, and he pointed out, very aptly, that if we could get a 1 per cent. increase in exports it would be equal to another 1,000 jobs.
  If we could get direct flights from Scotland to Europe, the chances of getting that kind of increase would improve, and, consequently, the prospect of new jobs would improve. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give an assurance that he will take this up with the air corporations to see whether this sort of improvement can be brought about.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I want to deal particularly with depopulation. I should be less than human if I did not draw attention to the state of affairs which exists within my constituency. I do this in the full knowledge that it applies equally to other areas on the periphery of the new development which is taking place in Central Scotland. With all due modesty, I think that we must admit that the achievements of the last Administration in Central Scotland were extremely noteworthy. In my submission, it is now time to look at the other areas. I understand that the Secretary of State will be paying particular attention to these outside areas when he winds up the debate.
  The biggest problem at the moment in such areas relates to the school leavers who are now coming on to the labour market and the necessity for them to find employment. It is extremely difficult and almost heart-breaking. To give a measure of the problem that we have to face in such areas, I should like to quote

  119
  a few figures. Between 1951 and 1961 the population of Banffshire fell by 6,000, representing about 13 to 14 per cent. of the population. Unfortunately, that depopulation has not ceased. It is estimated that between the last census and June this year 2,000 more people left. It is an accelerating process.
  The result of all this is a rapidly ageing population. That is not a good state of affairs for the county or the country as a whole. We shall eventually reach the situation where we have an old population with no plumbers to mend the leaks in the pipes when they burst during the winter. We are already approaching such a situation, for the boat-building yards in the north-east of Scotland are having difficulty in recruiting skilled carpenters so that they can carry on with the orders, such as they are, which they have on their books. It is dispiriting for the parents that the school leavers have to face difficulties such as I have mentioned.
  The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) sounded a little cynical when he referred to the planning boards and planning councils which the Government have set up. He referred to them as yet another wheel in the coach. I think that it would be facile unduly to criticise these boards and councils, because, frankly, we do not know what they are doing or what they will turn up. I think that it would be fair for me from this side of the Committee to wish them well. But we want action, and we want it soon.
  The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) spoke about industrial relations. It is perfectly true to say that industrial relations in the north-east of Scotland are as good as, if not better than, anywhere else in the United Kingdom. There has not to my knowledge been a strike of any dimension there within living memory.
  I want to make one or two suggestions of a general nature. One has already been touched upon by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel). I refer to possible amendments to the Local Employment Acts. Those Acts have done a great deal of good—there is no question about it—but I should like to see them, as the hon.
  120
  Member would, amended to take cognisance of depopulation. We have a situation in the North-East which would make it perfectly feasible for some existing firms to expand—labour is available—if they had the necessary financial inducements. That may sound like a truism, but it is, nevertheless, a fact. If we get a development district superimposed on a depopulating area, the firms will be able to expand.
  Those which I should like the Under-Secretary to bear in mind are in the knitwear industry. It is essential that we get help there, or those industries will decline. It is equally important in these areas that something should be done to help the smaller burghs which have difficulty in providing facilities for additional water supplies, for example, drainage and sewerage. I should like to know from the Secretary of State, when he replies, whether he has anything in mind in this direction. Unless the facilities for expansion exist, we simply will not get it.
  In that connection, also, I should like to know what is the Government's policy concerning industrial development certificates. I believe I am right in saying that in its election manifesto the party opposite said that it would do some tightening up. Does it intend to impose more stringent conditions for the issue of these certificates?
  Secondly, if we are to get industry to go into the areas of depopulation, we must mount a holding operation. If not, we will not be able to obtain development; we will not be able to put industry in those areas for the simple reason that there will be nobody left there to man the industry. I suggest that the Government should take another look at the Crowther Report and that part of it which refers to county colleges. With the establishment of those county colleges, a certain amount of technical training could be carried on within the areas such as those to which I am referring. There would be a certain amount of skill available on which incoming industry could build by training the new intakes.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) spoke about day release in that connection. At present, it is virtually impossible for people in these small remote areas to get to day release courses. If we had something of the

  121
  nature of a modified technical college in the form of county colleges, we would get more day release and we would have more training of the younger men and women after the normal working hours.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said, it would be of great value if attention could be paid to the setting up of industries in these areas where local products could be utilised. Naturally, representing a fishing constituency, I am very much interested in the processing of fish. I understand that there is a great market in Australia for red fish, a certain amount of which is caught in the North Sea. If we could utilise some of these products and process and can them in these areas, this would help the export market. If we could get firms interested in carrying that out, could not the Government devise further inducements to get such firms to move into the area?
  Fourthly, I suggest to the Government that retraining establishments should be set up in depopulating areas. I say that advisedly because with the increased emphasis which there must be on overseas aid to developing countries, and with the reports that we are constantly getting from the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations of the general shortage of protein throughout the world, by tying aid to goods—in other words, providing aid in kind rather than in cash—we could utilise some of of the existing facilities in such areas.
  I have in mind particularly the boat-building yards. Already we are sending men abroad with great experience in fishing to assist oversea fleets in building up their fishing and giving them the knowhow. Could we not, therefore, get the Minister of Overseas Development to think again on the method by which help is given to these developing countries and utilise some of the existing facilities which are already available?
  Finally, I see no good reason why the fast breeder reactor should not come to the north-east of Scotland. Excellent sites are available, in particular Rettie airfield. It has excellent facilities by road, rail and, if need be, by air. It lies close to the sea and cooling water is available. At the same time, as a
  122
  by-product of the reactor I am told that hot water would be available.
  In the recent debate on the fishing Estimates in the Scottish Grand Committee, fish farming was referred to. Could not the hot water from the fast breeder reactors be utilised to help in the fertilisation and breeding of young fish in fish farming, which might easily be carried out in some of the smaller now, unfortunately, disused harbours in the North-East?
  I have said enough to indicate that we on this side have great concern for depopulating areas. We ask the Government to look at them as closely as other areas and to give us all the help and assistance they possibly can.
  7.57 p.m.
  Mr. William Baxter: I have a certain degree of sentiment with the Amendment to reduce the Minister's salary. It might go even further than that and propose that Ministers should be paid by results. This would apply not only to present Ministers of the Crown, but to any future Ministers, and this method of payment might be in the best interest of the country as a whole.
  I was more than a trifle disappointed at the speeches from the two Front Benches. I detected a note of complacency in both of them. I felt that there was not the degree of urgency that this great problem requires. We had from my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade much the same sort of speech that we have been used to hearing from former Presidents of the Board of Trade, while from the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) we had a recital of what other people had said in other debates. There was little substance in either of the two speeches. We the back bench members are mindful of the great problem which confronts Scotland and which will not be easy to solve.
  Among the various problems as my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) has said, we are confronted by the plight of coal-mining, one of the basic industries on which the greatness of Scotland was founded. Throughout the length and breadth of our land, coal mines are closing down. In my constituency, in

  123
  the whole of the area of Kilsyth, Bannockburn and Cowie and Plean areas all the pits have gone out of being and nothing has been put in their place. The localities have been built up by the local authorities with first-class houses, schools and services of every description, and yet there is no industry within those areas.
  This is also true of the iron foundry industries. Typical examples are the town of Bonnybridge and the small town of Denny, where the industry is disappearing and where nothing is being introduced to take its place.
  It is said that shipbuilding is going through a period of expansion, but there is no certainty that this will be a continuing process. We would like some assurance from the Government that there is planning ahead and that there are schemes of co-ordination for the production of ships, co-ordination not only of management, but of labour. This is a very important industry, but I do not regard its economic state with any degree of satisfaction and nor am I sure that it will continue to expand.
  While it is true that, under pressure from outside bodies, the previous Government agreed to the location of the steel strip mill in Motherwell, unless the strip mills and the whole steel industry can be kept at full capacity, they will never be the economic unit as intended. They cannot be permitted to run at just a fraction of capacity.
  The nation's basic industrial wellbeing on which its past has been built is now in jeopardy. What do we have to put in its place? Many hon. Members have spoken of the motor industry and of the tractor industry, of the Rolls-Royce factory at Hillington, and so on and others have mentioned computer and science-based industries. It is true that something has been done in this respect and that many new industries have come to Scotland, but it must be remembered that their roots are in England, or America, or even France or Germany, and that is a precarious situation for Scottish industry.
  Hon. Members have spoken of the building industry and the possibility of new techniques, of larger units being pre-cast in old foundries and so on. This is
  124
  done in Falkirk where the Bison Co. is using old foundries and making them into modern factories for the production of prefabricated housing units, but the simple truth is that not all that is required can be produced because of the scarcity of cement.
  We must have a plan for the general wellbeing of the nation on a much better and more sensible basis. Certain things are required. I pay my tribute to the importance of the new atomic power plant and the fast breeder reactor which has to be built there is no doubt that it must be sited in Scotland. I should mean the resignation of the Secretary of State for Scotland if he could not get this development. It is important too for Scotland and, irrespective of their political complexion, the Government must be made to understand that we will not tolerate Scotland having second place in this modern development.
  Other hon. Members have spoken of the Local Employment Acts. They have been on the Statute Book for a long time. Certain designated areas have been given certain fiscal advantages to attract industry. We are now to have the Highland Development Board, so that another area will have special advantages; but in Scotland there will be a large area of no-man's land which will receive no assistance. It is a dangerous state of affairs when a nation like Scotland is broken into three different parts, each receiving different treatment from the Government. The time is opportune for the introduction of a scheme for the whole of Scotland. Scotland should have a different basis of taxation from that of England and Wales.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: Is not the hon. Gentleman advocating virtually some form of devolution of government?
  Mr. Baxter: I am very happy to advocate devolution as it is one of the basic requirements of Scotland at present. However, I cannot see either of the two major parties agreeing to it.
  While they might not go as far as I would go with devolution, at least they should try to introduce some different taxation system for Scotland, at both national and local level, with the greatest emphasis on the development of our

  125
  industrial wellbeing. As I have said, the industries now coming to Scotland do not have their roots in Scotland and we want a different taxation system which will give rise to new industry of native growth.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: Did the the hon. Gentleman support the Opposition in a Division in Committee on the Finance Bill when we moved an Amendment which would have resulted in different investment allowances in Scotland compared with the rest of the country?
  Mr. Baxter: It must be appreciated that a political game is played here, sometimes, unfortunately, to the disadvantage of Scotland. When in opposition one moves Amendments to embarrass the Government, but when in power one resists exactly the same Amendments. Do not let us try to score points or party advantage which are not in the best interests of Scotland. I deprecate the whole atmosphere of Scottish debate, and of parliamentary debates generally, when they are based on a game of "Let's pretend". I often think of the old saying, "The more we change, the more we remain the same". This happens with Government and Opposition, as many speeches have shown.
  I have had a little experience of dealing with the Board of Trade and trying to get development certificates, or assistance for an industry which wants to develop new techniques, or basic methods of production. I must protest against the fact that one has to go to London to do so. There is no office in Scotland where one can get the attention which industry deserves.
  I have found that the well-established industries get treatment very much worse than that given to new industries coming to Scotland. A few years ago, Lane and Girvin, in Bonnybridge, had the greatest trouble trying to persuade the Board of Trade to give it a grant to re-equip and modernise. It would have done far better to take a new factory, when all the assistance required would have been given. I have known of great obstacles being put in the way of ordinary businesses trying to expand in a sensible manner, a manner which various Governments have tried to encourage. I counsel
  126
  my right hon. Friend to look at the whole set-up of the Board of Trade to see whether there is a way to get some devolution so that in Scotland there is an office with full power to help old industries and new industries coming to Scotland.
  We have spoken before about the need for a new approach among the universities, industry and the Government towards scientific and technological advancement so that the universities can be brought closer to industry, even though there might have to be a heavy subsidy from the Government.
  I am greatly discouraged by what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan), who has now left the Chamber, about many scientists and technologists who go through universities and do not find jobs in Scotland, but go south of the Border and abroad. There could be a new Department set up to co-ordinate the activities of scientific development and new technical processes by the Government, universities and industry. I do not seek to develop this much more, but I say that unless something like that is done I do not think we are going to get the full growth of our industry which we can reasonably expect.
  Another matter which gives me very great concern is the fact that many people pay lip service to the export trade. It is absolutely imperative to our nation's well being that we should expand. What do we find? Along with some other businessmen in Scotland I sought to establish in Paris a House of Scotland for the purpose of trying to expand Scottish industry on the Continent with the new conception of exhibition space and new methods of trying to sell in agency businesses.
  We met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who was sympathetic to the idea. We met the Board of Trade representatives, who were sympathetic to the idea. But sympathy is not sufficient, we must have driving forces and this driving force must come from the seat of Government. I believe that a new approach to selling must be introduced in this country. For too long we have depended on our trade attaches in the various embassies to give us a stepping off place for our export trade. I

  127
  have said this before and it bears repetition, I have never gone into a British embassy and found one trade attaché who was well versed, or knowledgeable in the affairs of Scottish industry. This is indeed a tragedy if we are to seek to expand our industry we must be more positive.
  I agree that in transport there is a need for a co-ordinated service. I think that it is a disgrace and a shame that this wonderful asset which we possess, of a first-class network of railways throughout our land should be brought to a stop. Some of them should be electrified, some of them converted to diesel but the whole of our transport policy should be co-ordinated. If need be we should have an experiment in Scotland where goods could be sent on the basis of the postal service with an average charge for all goods coming from any part of Scotland. We are a small nation, but a nation that needs to look at new ideas and new approaches to the problems which confront us.
  There are many things that could be done. The incomes policy, as it applies to Scotland ought to be considered. While measures may be good for England and Wales they are not necessarily good for Scotland. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at the whole question of Scotland, without being bogged down by what has happened in England in the past, or what is likely to happen in England in the future, but in a new light, believing that new and different approaches would be more suitable to our peculiar requirements.
  8.15 p.m.
  Sir Fitzroy Maclean: I would like to take issue with the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) on what may seem a point of detail. I am sure that he would not like to be unjust to the whole of our commercial diplomatic service. I would say that my experience has been, in the United States at any rate, in Washington, particularly in New York and also in Chicago and a number of other big towns, that we are represented either by the Board of Trade or by the Foreign Office whose officials are extremely well-informed and have the interests of Scotland at heart. Some of
  128
  them are Scottish themselves and are doing everything they can to induce American industry to come to Scotland. I think that the success which has been achieved in recent years is very largely due to their efforts. I am sure the hon. Member would not like to be unjust to them.
  One thing that he said with which I would like to agree was that Ministers should be paid by results. That seems to be a very good idea. I am quite certain that if that rule were to be applied my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) would get a much bigger salary than his successors, because he certainly produced a great many results, and extremely good ones. I would like to congratulate him, and I would like to congratulate Scottish industry as a whole on the present relatively satisfactory state of the Scottish economy. I hope that for that reason, the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirlingshire will not level against me the same charge he levelled against his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, that of complacency.
  The present economic situation in Scotland is relatively satisfactory. Industrial production this year has gone up 7 per cent. The number of unemployed is lower than it has been for eight years and the President of the Board of Trade gave us what he, or someone else, called an impressive catalogue of industrial expansion of one kind or another. I do not think that any serious Labour speaker would claim for a moment that more than a very small share of the credit for this should go to the present Administration. Everyone knows that to bring about results of this kind takes a very long time. It is the outcome of years of patient effort and careful preparation when it is necessary to build up an atmosphere of confidence, which I would remind hon. Gentlemen, is all too easily destroyed.
  Credit for what has been done in this way must go to my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll, his predecessors, and to their colleagues in the previous Administration, and to the enterprise and initiative shown by Scottish industry itself. The fact is that when the Conservative Government left office last October they had achieved a genuine

  129
  break-through, of which we are now feeling the full results and of which the momentum, fortunately, is still continuing, although it is difficult to say how much longer it will continue.
  This is partly the result of the Conservative Government's great projects of recent years, in the motor industry, at Ravenscraig, Fort William and the rest; partly the result of the operation, all over Scotland of the Local Employment Act, which hon. Members opposite attacked so vigorously at the time, and partly the result of the fiscal concessions of the Budget of 1963. It is also partly the result of the improved infrastructure, which has been brought about by the successful road-building programme and also partly due to the atmosphere of confidence which existed under the last Administration, making Scotland attractive to would-be investors.
  The £60 million or so allocated to Scotland by the last Government under the Local Employment Act signified more than 54,000 new jobs. Between the 1963 Budget and the election the Board of Trade received more than 1,800 applications from firms which wanted to set up in Scotland or expand existing enterprises there. Hon. Members opposite were always extremely scornful about jobs in the pipeline, but they are only too ready to take credit for them and cash in on them now that they have emerged at the other end of the pipeline. For them the much despised pipeline has been a kind of cornucopia. It must not be forgotten that all these measures, the Local Employment Act, the 1963 Budget and the rest, were greeted with nothing but jeers and opposition from hon. and right hon. Members opposite. The present Secretary of State dismissed them as "Alexander's Ragtime Band", a phrase which, no doubt, reflects his well known proficiency as a ballroom dancer if not as a wit.
  What is the right hon. Gentleman doing about all this himself? After 13 years of virulent criticism of everything done by the last Government, what is he doing for Scotland now that he has power? Apart from a few paper projects, a few studies of depopulation and so on, no doubt very useful in their way, he has done very little. As one magazine put it, his recent utterances have been more like those of a political commentator than a
  130
  politician. He has done no more than sit on the sidelines and watch his predecessor's policies, which he attacked so vigorously, work out to his own advantage and then try to take credit for them.
  How much longer will this relatively happy state of affairs continue—relatively happy for the Government and relatively happy for Scotland for the moment? Unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues in the Government have not been as passive, as quiescent, as he has. They have been busy building Socialism. Theirs have been sins of commission rather that of omission as regards Scotland. No one can claim that the Corporation Tax will redound to Scotland's benefit or that it will make Scotland more attractive to foreign businessmen. The credit squeeze is not exactly calculated to encourage industrial investment there or, for that matter, to make it more easy—this is showing already—for local authorities to build roads or houses. Neither are things like the increased petrol tax and increased taxes generally or higher transport charges much of a help. Now, we are told, by no less an authority than the Prime Minister, that there are to be cuts in public expenditure. If these cuts are to come in Scotland, they will not help Scotland either.
  Finally, there is the atmosphere, and, by all the tokens, the atmosphere is not likely to be one of confidence for very much longer. What the Secretary of State must realise is that he cannot just sit there and assume that industrial growth in Scotland will continue in spite of rather than because of Government policy. So far, there has been no sign on his part of any policy whatever, and, unfortunately, there have been signs of wrong policy on the part of his colleagues.
  The last Government made quite clear that, in spite of the break-through which they achieved, they recognised that there was a great deal more to be done if the momentum in Scotland was to be maintained. What does the Secretary of State propose to do to keep up the momentum which he has inherited? There are several courses of action on which we are all agreed, for instance, the need for more advance factories. I was glad to hear what the President of the Board of Trade said about that. There is also

  131
  the question of research and development. We are all agreed—this was a criticism which I made of the last Government—that Scotland should have a bigger share, more than she at present has, of Government research and scientific establishments. Government Departments and establishments of all kinds could well be brought to Scotland. The last Government brought the Post Office Savings Bank to Glasgow, amid a great deal of protest from various quarters; but at least they did it. What Government Departments have this Government brought to Scotland?
  What is to happen to the development plan for Central Scotland which my right hon. Friend produced? Will this Government carry on the policy of growth points? Do they accept the development plan or not? They attacked it vigorously enough when it was first enunciated. As an Ayrshire Member, I shall be very interested to know what is to happen about the growth point of Irvine. This concerns the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) and to some extent, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), and it also concerns the Secretary of State himself directly. Are the last Government's proposals in this respect to be implemented or not? I hope that the Secretary of State will deal with all these points.
  8.28 p.m.
  Mr. John Rankin: I should like to deal specifically with the problem of shipbuilding, for the simple reason that it is not only one of the chief industries in my division but it is also one of the most important in Clydeside. Sitting, as I have, through most of the day, listening to this very interesting debate, I have been stirred to say a word or two on some of the issues which have been raised.
  I was stimulated by what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan), because it seemed to me that he put his finger right on the heart of the problem which faces us in industry today. We talk about a Scottish problem, but it is not a Scottish but a United Kingdom problem with which we are faced.
  I was listening very closely to the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire
  132
  (Sir F. Maclean) when he referred to the transfer of the Post Office Savings Bank to Glasgow, and it is worth noting what happened in that Governmental decision. It emphasises that the chief trouble which afflicts us in Scotland is the maldistribution of the wealth and investment of the United Kingdom. There is an over-concentration of income, investment and wealth in London and a lack of these things in the north of Scotland, The butter is not spread evenly.
  That arises from the fact that London is the ceremonial, the commercial and the administrative capital of the United Kingdom. These three facets of its life represent an immense congregation of capital and income. Moreover, they are a continuing attraction to those outside London. In the long run that is one of the contributory reasons for the continuous depopulation of the Highlands of Scotland and of Scotland as a whole. London is the attraction.
  Because they recognised that fact, the Labour Government in 1945 decided that some of the wealth concentrated in London should be moved to other parts of the United Kingdom. The Ministry of Defence was transferred from London to another part of England. Certain parts of the Inland Revenue Department went to Cardiff. National Insurance offices went to Newcastle and the Health Department went to Blackpool.
  Various other administrative transfers of that type were decided on by the Labour Government and over the years that part of London's wealth and employment was transferred to different parts, not, unfortunately, of the United Kingdom but of England. In the course of these transfers 30,000 persons previously employed in London were dispersed to other parts of England. In the same period 787 persons employed in London were transferred to Scotland. That represents the balance; which is very adverse to Scotland.
  In their dying moments, as a death-bed repentance, the previous Government, to their credit, agreed to renew this policy of dispersal and decided that the Post Office Savings Bank would be transferred from London to Glasgow. One would think that nothing like it had ever happened in the history of London. We may talk about the plague, the Black Death, and the Great Fire—but it was as if

  133
  nothing as important had ever happened before. One would have thought that these 700 people were going to a place where people lived at a lower level, with inferior houses, poorer education, poorer social conditions and a lower social and economic life altogether.
  All sorts of inducements were offered, like special visits to the City of Glasgow, promises that the changes which they feared would not materialise and that other human being lived in Glasgow and had been living there for a long while. Evidently, according to the transferees, those living in Glasgow subsisted at a social, industrial and domestic level of life not fit for any good Londoner.
  Today, more than a year after the decision to continue with this policy of dispersal, all that has been achieved is that we have fixed the site at Cowglen, on the outskirts of Glasgow, for this transfer, when it materialises. I have been told in the House that it will be about 10 years before it is consumated. I am sure that that length of time was not required to carry out all the transfers that have taken place from London to the various parts of England to which I have referred.
  Perhaps I should state again that we in Scotland do not run about all the time in our bare feet. We wear socks and shoes, eat reasonably well and live in fairly decent houses. These facts should be better known in certain parts of England. That I must mention them emphasises what I began by saying, that London has too much and that that muchness is creating for London problems which it finds almost impossible to solve. It emphasises that the invested wealth in the South must be dissipated throughout the United Kingdom and not concentrated in, relatively, so few hands. A well-known Socialist who became a Minister in a Labour Government once wrote in a pamphlet, which was widely read in the Socialist movement, that too much wealth in too few hands was the cause of too much poverty among too many people. That is still true today. We must, therefore, face up to the need to redistribute not only the income but also the wealth of the country.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) referred to some of the things which must be done in Scotland, but which can only be done by raising capital in London. About
  134
  three years ago, with the help of the Board of Trade, in an effort to prevent an important industry in my constituency employing 600 people from closing down, I helped the firm to raise the necessary capital it required, but we had to do that in the money market in London. This is true of many other industries in Scotland. Our legal affairs in Scotland are dependent, at certain levels such as the House of Lords—the final court of appeal—on our going through London, and we cannot do that without the use of the legal fraternity who abide in London. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench will not forget that dispersal is still our policy; and that it will be pursued by the Socialist Government now in power.
  The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said that in his division 1,000 people have lost their jobs with Ferranti's as a result of the decision to stop work on the TSR2—
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: In Edinburgh.
  Mr. Rankin: That is news to me. We have had a great deal of debate on this matter, and all sorts of forebodings have been prognosticated, but in a visit last month to the Midlands—which, according to the prophets, was to be the most heavily hit—I found that not one individual engaged on that project had been penalised. Every one had been re-engaged in a job of an equivalent value and importance. I was, therefore, astonished to discover that Edinburgh had suffered as badly as the hon. Member indicated.
  I agree with much that was said about shipbuilding by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. In Govan today, unlike the time of the Tory Government, there is no unemployment in that industry, although the numbers employed in it have been reduced by 50 per cent. In 1951, 10,000 persons in Govan were employed in shipbuilding and today there are only 5,000; but, far from there being unemployment, there is a definite and serious shortage of labour. Earnings are around £20 a week and the order books are full, but because of lack of labour last year only four of the five berths in the Fairfield Shipbuilding Company were working. Nevertheless, the ships then building were delivered

  135
  on time, and exports thereby kept up—and the export side is the important part of shipbuilding. This year, however, only three berths can be worked, and only two of those will be adequately manned. Unless the labour force can be increased, contract dates for ships on order will not be met, and exports will tend to decline.
  What does this mean at national level? At present, United Kingdom shipping tonnage on order is approximately 2 million gross tons. Of this weight 22 per cent. is for export with a value of between £60 million and £70 million. In this industry Scotland plays a foremost part, but it is worth noting that over the last eight years the loss of labour from Clydeside shipyards has reached a figure of 10,000. If I wanted to make political capital out of that, I should point out that obviously it is due to the fact that we had a Tory Government in power during all those years.
  Clydeside urgently requires 1,000 men. The yard in my constituency needs 500. Everyone would hate to see the Q4 delayed because of this shortage. What is the cause of the shortage? The losses from shipbuilding have been mostly due to the newer and lighter industries which, rightly, have been encouraged towards those areas where unemployment was most likely because of too great concentration on heavy industry. In many cases the wages paid to semi-skilled operatives in the newer industries are more than could be earned in shipbuilding. House building, which used to provide a reservoir of labour for the shipbuilder, can no longer be relied on for any building-up required by the yards. This is understandably due to the push given to house building by the Government. No one would want to see any change in this policy. It is a good policy and Scotland as a whole is benefiting from it.
  The question arises: what can and should be done? The Government are seeking to secure mobility of labour between trades. Men trained in one industry are being retrained for another. Could there not similarly be greater mobility of labour within the yards? My right hon. Friend today pointed out that this was taking place at John Brown's and Stephen's yards, in my constituency. Those are the only two I know of where
  136
  it is happening. I hope the news will go to all the other yards as an encouragement to others, especially those in what are called the "iron trades", the platers, welders, burners, caulkers and shipwrights. All of them could undertake certain types of work now confined to each other's respective trades.
  My right hon. Friend referred only to the agreement between the shipwrights and the platers. We want to bring in all the others. Shipwrights and platers can exchange duties, but this important industry will suffer severely along with exports unless it finds from within its own ranks by patience and understanding the extra labour power necessary to overcome the continuing drain from which it is now suffering. I believe that negotiations have been going on for some time between the employers and the trade unions to try to get agreement on an interchange of labour between trades.
  I hope that this will be successful. I also hope that the Government will take a paternal interest in these negotiations, because if shipbuilding and its exports are to be maintained at their existing level, if not expanded, these diminishing numbers will require to be offset by internal reorientation.
  8.50 p.m.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I feel very guilty indeed speaking at this time when I know that there are three hon. Members opposite who have been here all day and have not yet spoken. I assure them that, subject to not being interrupted, I shall endeavour to finish in five minutes and thus allow one of them to speak. I had hoped to make a long speech covering a large number of points, but I will concentrate on the two which I think are the most important.
  First, a great deal of nonsense has been spoken today about shipbuilding, both by the President of the Board of Trade and by other Members who have spoken on this subject. It is true that one of the most serious problems is the use of labour. It is ludicrous to talk in terms of the interchangeability of trades, particularly among the steel workers. In Stephens for ten years we have had a combined erection team who can work together for administrative purposes on erection. In John Brown's we have, to a lesser extent, interchangeability with

  137
  platers end shipwrights. We are not by any means using labour in the shipyards as it should be used. Much must be done.
  I will give one example of just about the best workers we have ever had in the Cyde shipyards—the riveters. Membership of the Boilermakers Society—welders, platers, caulkers, and the rest—came to an agreement with the riveters. But when these riveters became redundant or were faced with the stark problem of redundancy they found that in only a few cases could they become welders and then subject to their becoming redundant first when redundancy took place. I am not trying to throw cold water on the progress which has been made, but it is not nearly enough.
  If the President of the Board of Trade thinks that the size of the order book justifies his policies, it should be made clear that the new orders we have had in this most recent period have been only half what they were in the comparable period last year. Under the shipbuilding credit scheme we had a total of 900,000 tons of orders, and more than one-third of these came to Scotland. From this Government we have had the devaluing of investment allowances, which will hit the shipbuilders very hard. We have had their refusal to give the same concessions to shipyards as they have given to the shipping industry in the Finance Bill. That will hit the shipyards very hard. No industry is being hit harder by the Corporation Tax than the shipyards. This will hurt a great deal. The refusal of the Government to continue the shipbuilding credit scheme makes an immense difference to the shipyards, since 80 per cent. of all the orders coming to the shipyards come from our own shipowners. There is the ludicrous position that the Government are encouraging our firms to take export orders, while our own shipowners are ordering from Germany, Japan, and so on. We want to encourage exports, but this is a strange way of going about it.
  The second point concerns the various Board of Trade schemes to help industry in Scotland. Several hon. Members have said that the time has come for a complete change. I would agree, but the way in which I suggest the change should be made is to get away from that concept that aid comes only when there is an
  138
  increase in employment. This should not be the sole consideration. Many firms in Scotland want to spend money to safeguard the employment of their own people, to encourage the firm to develop further, and to provide opportunity for the professional classes—university graduates—in their factories. If they can merely show that a new machine will save labour—that it will not provide more employment, but will save labour—no grant is available. Many of the best firms in Scotland which want to spend money to bring about further development find they can get no assistance whatsoever from the scheme because they cannot prove that it will bring immediately or directly more jobs. It certainly does not seem to be the answer at all.
  Mr. Jay: I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises that free depreciation would be available.
  Mr. Taylor: Certainly free depreciation is of assistance in the development areas but, in order to get assistance for new machinery, a firm has to prove new jobs. I would point out that when we pleaded for this concession to be given to the shipyards it was turned down, although the same concession was given to the shipping industry.
  Finally, I would make the point that we are concerned about what appears to be a run-down in the Scottish economy. I was staggered to hear the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) say that if the Government were faced with the need for prioritiee, we should cut down on housing. I have been informed that in Glasgow, in the first six months of this year, housing completions were down by one-quarter compared with the last six months of last year. That is a terrible situation, and the building industry is usually the first to show any change in the economic pattern. The Government have a record of complete inactivity. We want results, otherwise there will be a real danger of undoing the good that was brought to Scotland by the previous Government.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. James Hamilton: I want to thank the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) for being so considerate and giving me the opportunity to make a short contribution to the debate.

  139
  Much has been said about industrial relations. I want to take up the point in the short time at my disposal because, although the Minister of Labour has made a statement to the effect that there is an increase in the loss of man hours in the whole motor car industry, it does not answer the point made by one of my hon. Friends on this side that in that industry there are fewer industrial disputes in Scotland than there are in the Midlands. That is an absolute fact. At the same time, statements of that sort will serve no useful purpose. I want to make it clear, coming from the industry, as I do, that we all have a responsibility to give facts when we make such statements.
  We have also heard statements to the effect that the present unemployment figure, which is in the region of 59,000 in Scotland, results from the previous Government's policy prior to the election. We have very short memories because, since the Conservative Government came to power in 1951, to all intents and purposes the economy of Scotland has been a yo-yo: we have had booms and slumps and, unfortunately, far too many slumps. Need I remind hon. Members that in 1962, under the previous Administration we had 136,000 unemployed in Scotland, and in Lanarkshire we had over 19,000 odd unemployed. Comparing the two, one finds, that, of the whole Scottish total, one-seventh was in Lanarkshire. That was under the previous Administration.
  We are also told that they were responsible for giving all industrialists, with very few exceptions, the I.D.Cs which were necessary to bring industry to Scotland. I have it from a very authoritative source, from a person who worked in the Board of Trade and who happens to have been one of our supporters, that nine months before the last General Election they were told to go through the files again, and those I.D.Cs. which had been turned down previously were then granted, obviously with a view to providing some window-dressing and giving the then Administration the opportunity to try and convince the electorate that they were out to solve the problems of Scotland.
  I believe that both sides agree that the present figure of 59,000 unemployed is not satisfactory. I believe, also, that
  140
  we must have more advanced factories. When we were the Government, from 1945 to 1951, we pursued that policy until we left office. When we left office there was a cessation of the building of the factories. All the time pressure came from this side to embark on a policy of building advance factories. That policy it is now bearing fruit. In my own constituency we have a new industrial estate. The opportunity is now afforded to industrialists to come to Lanarkshire, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has stated that one new factory is coming and that will employ 130 people. We welcome it. I am convinced that this sort of policy is the only possible way to solve the economic problems which confront the country.
  I do not want to take advantage of the position by speaking any longer, and I shall now sit down, thanking the hon. Gentleman once again for having allowed me time to get into the debate.
  9.1 p.m.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: This has been a good debate, and a large number of speeches have been made owing to the self-denial of certain hon. Members. I would particularly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) for having made an excellent speech within five minutes.
  No doubt, our debate would have been better informed if there had not been the difficulty over the absence of documents and the latest figures which normally are available at this time of the year and before this debate, and the absence of announcements by Ministers. In the course of the debate the Government has received advice and suggestions on the problems of many different areas of Scotland, and different industries and different activities in Scotland have been touched on.
  The President of the Board of Trade started his speech by giving some of the latest figures of unemployment, and these are welcome and encouraging. He was able to mention particular areas where it had been bad in the past and where now, clearly, there is much improvement, but all that he said about this confirms the success of the measures taken by previous Conservative Governments. He seemed to be claiming credit

  141
  for these unemployment figures, but, of course, he could not, when pressed, adduce any single action by the Government in the last nine months which had contributed to them. We all know that it takes much longer than that to bring jobs to Scotland, and the figures, as I said, confirm the success of the measures of previous Conservative Administrations.
  The President of the Board of Trade also gave us a great many facts and figures to show the areas in sq. ft. now being authorised and which held prospects for the future. We welcome these figures, but, as I listened to him, I could not help being reminded of the words of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in our debate last year when he said of the then President of the Board of Trade:
  "The right hon. Gentleman will talk about prospects, applications, jobs in the pipeline, millions of sq. ft.—the lot."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1964; Vol. 699, c. 299.]
  That is, indeed, what we heard from the President of the Board of Trade today.
  Mr. Jay: The hon. Gentleman will not look at existing facts and will not look at future plans either, so what does he want?
  Mr. Campbell: I am afraid that I do not understand the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman's intervention.
  The only point in which the right hon. Gentleman did not follow the formula indicated by his right hon. Friend was that he refrained from using the word "pipeline", but he simply gave us exactly the same thing using a rigmarole of other words instead. If the right hon. Gentleman had called a spade a spade, he would have called it a pipeline again, except that in his speech my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) suggested the word "cornucopia" because it has provided the jobs which have enabled the right hon. Gentleman to give us these welcome figures today.
  The important fact which must be borne in mind by the Committee is that stated on page 11 of the White Paper on Development and Growth in Scotland of last September that during the period from 1st April, 1960, to 30th January, 1964, the financial assistance offered under the Local Employment Acts
  142
  amounted to 52 per cent. of the total for Great Britain. Now the right hon. Gentleman tells us that it is still running at a reasonably high level, but only at 48 per cent., if I understood his opening speech.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could give an assurance concerning the expected statement about cuts in public expenditure. All that the right hon. Gentleman said in reply was that in taking decisions the Government would take specially into account the position of the underemployment areas, or words to that effect. This did not amount to the assurance on Scotland which my right hon. Friend requested. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has now had some hours to consider the reply to this point, will be able to give the firm assurance for which my right hon. Friend asked.
  My right hon. Friend made a point about housing targets and I would wish to clear up one aspect of that. When my right hon. Friend said that the party opposite had set a target of 40,000 houses in Scotland this year the Secretary of State or one of his colleagues shook his head, but the reason why my right hon. Friend said this was that he had seen a report in the Press of a speech made by the Secretary of State in Glasgow in February. The report said:
  "He would be 'a disappointed man' if they did not achieve a target of 40,000 by next year. He would be more disappointed if they had not achieved 50,000 houses a year by the end of Labour's term."
  I would comment that the two periods may well coincide. We also know that since then the Under-Secretary of State, in reply to a Question some time ago, indicated that the sights had been set a little lower and that the target now was 37,000 a year. However, this was why my right hon. Friend mentioned the previous target.
  In considering the problems of industry and employment in Scotland, it is important to keep in mind that two of the chief causes of Scotland's economic problems and the unemployment resulting from them are, first, the contraction of some heavy industries which, in the past, were the mainstay and source of prosperity in Scotland, and, second, the facts

  143
  of geography and, in particular, of distances from sources of supply and from markets.
  During recent years there has been a continuing process of reduction in the number of jobs. The task, therefore, has been, and must remain, the creation of alternative new jobs which will more than counter-balance the decrease. Several hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have mentioned the coal industry. Our attention has been directed to the statement made by the Minister of Power a few days ago about the capital reconstruction of the industry, because in it he indicated that further pit closures were to be expected. The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and other hon. Members expressed some anxiety about this. I agree that where the seams are running out or where the coal can be extracted only with such difficulty as to be uneconomic pits should be closed. The important question is that of timing, and the warning period which can be given. Will there be available suitable alternative work? Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the Minister of Power or Lord Robens, and can he tell us this evening what proposals these consultations may lead to in respect of Scottish pit closures?
  As for alternative work, under the growth point principle, with which I shall deal later, it is not necessarily a question of bringing new work to the precise area of the colliery which is to close—but it should be within travel-to-work distance. This is a challenge to economic change which Scotland must face. It involves the question of retraining, and especially the problem of the older miners who find it difficult to transfer to other work.
  All parties claim to be parties of modernisation, which greet the challenge of change, but we must remember that the special problem of older miners requires understanding and imaginative help. As the hon. Member for Fife, West was good enough to point out, the situation has been considerably eased by the decisions taken during the time of the previous Conservative Government to build two large coal-fired power stations at Cockenzie and Longannet. These decisions were based on the efficient technical use of easily available low-grade coal.
  144
  These power stations will keep several thousand miners in necessary productive employment for a considerable period.
  Previous Governments have set themselves the task of bringing to Scotland firms in modern industry. This should be the aim of the present Government. In this connection three matters need to be borne in mind. First, there must be variety, so that Scotland is no longer dependent upon only a few industries. Secondly, the incoming firms should, if possible, be those which use modern technologies. Thirdly, the firms should be those which are likely to grow.
  These firms need not necessarily all be firms which are likely to employ much labour. Those which do employ a lot of labour are immediately attractive, but the stage has been reached where it is more important that they should meet the three points which I have just mentioned, in that way helping to strengthen, modernise and diversify the industrial structure of Scotland.
  The second main cause which I mentioned was described by me as the facts of geography. Distances in Scotland make the transport arteries so important that their efficiency must be a major part of our industrial economy, both to the South and also, internally in Scotland.
  One point that is becoming more and more important is the fact that some modern industries do not require supplies of heavy goods—for example, firms in electronics and automation. One of their recent successes has been in the miniaturisation of their products. An example is that a computer which a few years ago would have filled a large room can now be put into a box not much more than a cubic foot in volume. This is the kind of industry to which distance matters very little, if at all. It is the kind of industry which is already finding Scotland highly suitable for its work.
  I have been told recently by someone in the industry—I do not know whether he was joking or not—that the stage will soon be reached where, instead of, as in the past, using lorries to transport its goods and supplies, this industry will need only a mini. This certainly gives an indication of the result of miniaturation and its effect in Scotland. The President of the Board of Trade is, I think, the Minister most concerned with this, and I

  145
  hope that he and the Secretary of State will do all they can to bring to the attention of such modern industries the suitability of Scotland for their purposes.
  I said that I would say something about the growth point principle. It was adopted in the White Paper on Central Scotland issued nearly two years ago. There the principle was accepted that within a given region faster industrial growth would be achieved and more jobs created if incoming firms were steered to a place where conditions were most favourable for their operations rather than simply to the places where unemployment was highest.
  Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we were working on the principle of growth points soon after the war? Hon. Gentlemen opposite must have forgotten about it during the first ten years of their Government.
  Mr. Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues may have been working on growth points then, but it must have been to a very minor degree. When the Toothill Committee made its investigation, one of its major recommendations was that the principle of growth areas should be accepted. [Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen opposite will kindly listen, I will explain the point to them. There was considerable argument after that whether the principle should be adopted or not. On the other side, it was naturally argued by areas of high unemployment that they had a prior claim and that the assistance should not be steered to areas which were already proving successful. Thus, there was a controversy, but the Government eventually adopted the principle.
  I well remember the present President of the Board of Trade, when in opposition, querying it and saying that numbers of development areas, in Durham for example, had not been included in growth areas but should be. Therefore, he was one of those who at that time queried whether the principle should be adopted. His right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, was pretending that there was no difference at all and that they were all the same, that he could not see the difference between development districts and growth areas. However, some of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends asked that parts of their
  146
  constituencies, if not the whole of them, should be included in growth areas. Therefore, they realised that there was a difference and that a considerable new principle had been adopted.
  Mr. Jay: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are now giving a fair amount of help to the areas which were neglected by the previous Government.
  Mr. Campbell: I do not accept that for a moment. The principle, as I have said, was building upon success.
  In our debate on regional plans for Scotland in the Scottish Committee on 13th July, an hon. Member stated that a certain growth area had been designated as a growth area but that growth was taking place already and, therefore, it made no difference. That showed a complete misunderstanding of the principle of growth areas. Where firms are already succeeding and growth is taking place, that is the kind of qualification which immediately makes an area eligible; one is building upon success. It is understandable that another area which feels that it is much worse off complains that it should get priority. The principle is that it is better for a man to have a job which may be ten miles away than not to have a job at all. Under this principle, one is likely to get a greater industrial expansion than under the principle simply of steering firms to the precise areas where unemployment is highest. This has been applied so far in the industrial central area of Scotland.
  The principle of growth points which the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) had in mind much earlier, and which, no doubt, was in the minds of other hon. Members also, should be one of the principles to be adopted when the four regional studies are considered by the Government, where appropriate. Although in the sense of an industrial growth zone the large rural areas may not be in exactly the same situation, none the less the principle that it may in certain cases be best to concentrate upon points where development is likely to be most successful is one which we would hope to find being followed in other parts of Scotland as well. This could be a measure which would assist in countering depopulation as well as dealing with unemployment. The Government should consider altering the existing

  147
  legislation to widen the scope of Government assistance to include such points, because many of them may well not fall within local unemployment districts as at present defined.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) spoke of depopulation in his area, and it is an area which would be affected. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) inquired about our ideas on this subject, and that is certainly my answer to him. He also asked whether we believed in regional planning. Of course, the answer is in the affirmative. We initiated and completed the plan for Central Scotland, and we started the studies for the other four regions covering the whole of Scotland.
  I should like now to ask some questions of the Secretary of State. In the debate on 21st July last year, the right hon. Gentleman criticised the South-East Study. It was explained to him that the increase in population which was foreseen would be mostly the result of natural increase and that actions resulting from the Study were not expected to start until the 1970s. Now that the right hon. Gentleman is in office, I should like to know from him what is the Government's attitude. All that we have heard so far appears to be an extension of the South-East Study with an announcement by the Minister of Housing and Local Government that further new towns at certain distances from London are to be created. What is now the position of the Government and of the Secretary of State?
  Then there is the important question of transport in Scotland and especially roads and bridges. In page 10 of "Signposts for Scotland", the suggestion that there would be tolls on the Forth Bridge and for the Tay and Erskine bridges was described as indefensible. The Forth Bridge will have been open for a year in little more than a month. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us tonight what is his policy on the subject of tolls after that first year, which was to be the first year of tolls? Does he consider that these tolls are likely to be a handicap to plans for industrial expansion? If so, page 11 of "Signpost for Scotland" says that they should be abolished.
  While I am on the subject of "Signposts for Scotland"—which the Secretary
  148
  of State may now wish had never been written—I must turn to the subject of investment allowances, mentioned on page 8, because we have received no proper answer on this issue. Page 8 says:
  "… inducements of various kinds, including special investment allowances and other tax reliefs, will be offered to industrialists who are prepared to take more jobs to job-hungry areas."
  That was in the official Labour publication on Scotland before the election, but the only action so far has been that in the Finance Bill of reducing the value of investment allowances. When I asked the Secretary of State about this in the Scottish Grand Committee, his answer was very roundabout. He said that the object had been to separate personal and company taxation and he went on to say:
  "With that change we shall have greater freedom in regional considerations which will redound to the benefit of those areas where we wish to give inducements. This was the first important step".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 13th July, 1965; c. 268.]
  Can he tell us how the reduction of these allowances will redound to the advantage of those areas and what is the further step which we are now to expect? If the first was reduction, the further step is likely to be abolition.
  Conversely, if he agrees that this is nonsense, will he now repudiate the statement in "Signposts for Scotland", which received a great deal of publicity when it was first issued and which some people in Scotland no doubt read and which perhaps some believed? I must also mention the Corporation Tax which already has had the effect of frightening foreign businesses, particularly American businesses who have been so successful in Scotland in the past, from settling in Scotland.
  What have the Government done so far in their nine months in office, except for an announcement about advance factories? Incidentally, these are all concentrated in central Scotland whereas we were able to put some in other parts of Scotland as well. The answer is that the Government have done nothing.
  The Statist of 23rd July said:
  "In the absence of what might remotely be described as a Labour policy for Scottish development, one can only judge progress in terms of how well the Government has continued the programmes of its predecessor".

  149
  There are some things which the Government have done during those nine months. They have added to transport costs in Scotland and they have produced a credit squeeze and continued it for a very long time. I would like to quote from something written by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in a newspaper on 28th February, last year, about the credit squeeze of that time, which was a 5 per cent. Bank Rate. He wrote:
  "The effect of dearer money will be hard on Scotland. The results will be:
  It will slow down industrial expansion much more than in England.
  It will embarrass local authorities financially, and endanger house and school building programmes.
  It will leave our basic unemployment problem unchanged …"
  We have had six months of 7 per cent.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: The effect on the Public Works Loan Board was far greater under the previous Government.
  Mr. Campbell: That is a very small flea bite compared with a credit squeeze which ran at 7 per cent. for so long and was then reduced by only a minor amount.
  The only excuse which the right hon. Gentleman can give for having done nothing is, presumably, that he is waiting for the national plan, that he is waiting for the First Secretary to produce a plan. The major industrial problems of Scotland and the likely methods of dealing with them will not be altered by that plan. The preparation of a plan is no reason for doing nothing in the meantime. When the Secretary of State for Scotland was in opposition, he painted a dismal picture of Scotland. He was a prophet of gloom. Now that he is in office and has done nothing, we see that he had something to be gloomy about. What is needed in Scotland is to continue the improvement of the Scottish economy and to adjust to the conditions of today and tomorrow. This means varied and up-to-date industry, and full use of our resources, including a beautiful and majestic countryside.
  I am hopeful that increasingly the advantages of Scotland can be made apparent to both firms and individuals—for example of getting away from congestion in the South and living and work-
  150
  ing in agreeable conditions with an enlarged scope for recreation and leisure. The responsibility rests with the Government to adopt measures and policies which will assist to this end. So far, this Government have done little, if anything, for Scotland.
  9.32 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): We have looked forward to a slashing attack on the Government, with the swords of Scotland drawn and a charge being made upon us for having brought Scotland to decay so quickly. But the trouble is that the picture in Scotland looks far too bright. Since the election the Opposition have been complaining that there would be a loss of confidence in Scotland, in business already established there and that the prospects of new business entering the country would be diminished. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) was saying it was so bad that there would be an election last spring.
  The trouble with right hon. and hon. Gentlemen is that they will not face the fact that there has been a change in the face of Scotland, and it has not all been due to the same policies that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Argyll spoke about. The right hon. Gentleman was wonderful today. One would have thought that I had been here for 20 years. One day is long enough for him. We are used to the jeers of the jaundiced, the deposed, the people who were found out by Scotland.
  There were some improvements in 1964, some changes in attitudes and policies, but 1964 was far too late for trust by the people of Scotland in the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, and 1965 is too early for forgetfulness of what they did for 13 years. The right hon. Gentleman became Secretary of State for Scotland in July, 1962. It was not until December or November of 1963 that he produced anything at all, and that was a plan for Central Scotland.
  We had a debate on it in this House. Does the right hon. Gentleman forget his own words? Does he forget how he wound up his speech on 3rd December, 1963, he who dares attack me after I have been here for barely nine months

  151
  and inherited the mess left behind? He said:
  "… this is the first attempt to get things in Scotland put right."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1963; Vol. 685, c. 1105.]
  He had been in power since 1951.
  I want to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his speech today. The hon. Gentlemen sitting behind him had not heard him make an industrial speech in the House before. Let me tell them that that was one of the best speeches he ever made. We remember some of the things that the right hon. Gentleman has said in the past. Here is an example, from The Scotsman of Friday, 26th April, 1963. At the Highlanders' Institute, though he had not got a kilt on that day—there were too many Scotsmen about—he said:
  "In the next few months we shall put Scotland firmly on the right road to prosperity with modern cities, schools, roads and transport and with great new housing schemes. We shall keep more of our able young Scotsmen at home with the promise of such a future, and begin to cure our unemployment blight. We shall then win and deserve to win the next election."
  In the year that followed, more young Scotsmen left Scotland than had left in any year this century, and the migration reached the staggering total of 41,000.
  Mr. MacArthur: What about migration and unemployment today?
  Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that this is at the core of the malaise in Scotland. I am not complacent about the position today, based on unemployment figures, because unemployment figures, satisfying as they may be, may themselves mask migration. They may be achieved by migration. We must build on the basis of what we know our needs are, and we must be sure that we know what our resources are in order to be ready for the new industry coming in.
  We are embarked in Britain on a gigantic task of planning Britain for the first time. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to talk about programmes. We inherited programmes. In an intervention during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirling-shire (Mr. Woodburn) the right hon. Gentleman said that he had completed programmes. What programmes did he complete?—the road programme,
  152
  the housing programme, the hospitals programme? We inherited programmes all right—there were five-year programmes, 10-year programmes, rolling programmes, and programmes for the half-time results. What we did not inherit was the organisation and resources to achieve these programmes because the programmes in Britain were based upon the achievement of a rate of growth which right hon. and hon. Members opposite had never achieved and never looked like achieving.
  Right hon. and hon. Members opposite left us with a problem, which was proclaimed in 1952 by the Tory Chancellor of the day as a chronic problem which they would solve, the problem of the balance of payments. But they left us with it, a problem of staggering dimensions which they shut their eyes to all during that pre-election summer. Oh yes, we had projects, but all in principle. The right hon. Gentleman was the "Principle boy" of the Tory Party's pre-election pantomime.
  How many projects did the right hon. Gentleman approve, start and finish while he was Secretary of State? None. He need not talk about the pulp mill. I have here the history of the pulp mill project, written by the firm itself. There are photographs in it of all sorts of people, including the father of the noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh, North (The Earl of Dalkeith), Lord Polwarth, and several other people, but there is not even a mention of the right hon. Gentleman's name. The pulp mill had more to do with those people who, in generations past, built up the forests in Scotland. Indeed, in 1958 they took an option on the ground. It was the unique circumstance of the availability of a nationalised forest programme which enabled this to be done.
  There have been projects every week since we have become the Government—and the right kind of project.
  Mr. Noble: What are they?
  Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman does not even read his newspapers. If he reads the Press tomorrow he will find that it will be announced that the firm of S. G. S. Fairchild will occupy 11½ acres at Falkirk to manufacture electronic components. Work is to start on the factory in October. The firm

  153
  hopes to employ 1,200 people by 1967, and it will add to our growing electronics industry. That, we are told, is "frightening off people overseas".
  What a piece of hypocrisy from the right hon. Gentleman, who must appreciate exactly what is being done in different parts of the country, not just the growth areas, as they designated them but in parts outside the growth areas, too. The, right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends remind me of the group of old women who stand in the village in Scotland discussing all those who are dangerously ill and who are very disappointed if somebody ever looks like getting better.
  Hon. Members opposite complain about the White Paper, but it was the right hon. Gentleman who changed the whole form of the publication of the White Paper. He answered a Question by Lord Muirshiel, "Jack" Maclay as he was, on 15th May, 1964. The last White Paper in the old form covered 1962–63 and was issued in July, 1963. No White Paper was available for last year's trade and industry debate, and he told us why.
  Later this year we shall be issuing our White Paper relating to our plans and proposals in respect of Scottish development, including the review of the Central Scotland Plan. The right hon. Member took me to task because of some cynical things which I said last year or the year before—it was December, 1963—about the Central Scotland Plan. I have a fairly long memory. I can remember hon. Members on both sides of the House demanding that their districts should be scheduled as development districts under the Local Employment Act. What did it mean to be scheduled? To most of those districts it meant nothing at all, because nothing came. Every single one of the so-called growth areas was already scheduled. There was not a single new advantage, financial or otherwise, for these so-called growth areas.
  It was interesting today to hear new hon. Members talking about depopulation—interesting and fascinating. We spoke of this as a criterion for assistance under the Local Employment Act before and during the passage of that Act—and so did the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). He
  154
  remembers as well as I do who voted against it. It was right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, the Tory rump who are still here, and others who have made way for younger men.
  It was not only the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) who spoke for a policy of drift and said that we should let the people go where they could get jobs. It was the other contender, too, the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), at that time President of the Board of Trade, who said, "We cannot be like King Canute and try to stop the tide. People will drift. They prefer to go elsewhere to get employment." That is why people left the Highlands, the Borders and the North-East. It is no good looking to the Conservative Party for any guidance about that—and we got none from its representatives today.
  Sir F. Maclean: We are not getting it from you, anyway.
  The Chairman: Order. If the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) seeks to intervene he must do so in a correct way—and he must not charge the Chair with anything at all.
  Mr. Ross: The Chair had better be careful, because the hon. Gentleman is a hotel keeper in Scotland and he might charge anybody anything.
  We must appreciate that we have been able to attract more and more new industry to Scotland—with inquiries actually being made for them—at a higher rate than before. This is not jobs in prospect. The negotiations have actually been completed. And when we consider the type of job we are now getting we see that we are concentrating, and successfully achieving, the sort of job Scotland needs, related to the growth industries themselves. It is not good enough for hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that the Government have got nothing to do with this progress. The very climate of expansion must be responsible for it, although we are hampered by the legacy of financial difficulty which hon. Gentleman opposite left us. My right hon. Friend has given an assurance about future measures which need to be taken and that the under-developed areas will be regarded for any decisions that are

  155
  taken as most important because we do not want to stop the beneficial expansion which is already taking place.
  In their speeches today hon. Gentlemen opposite have roamed the field. The right hon. Member for Argyll asked a lot of questions, including when a start would be made on the Erskine Bridge. The party opposite made arrangements for this bridge. What were they? In the last Parliament we were never given answers to the sort of questions asked by the right hon. Gentleman today, but I can now tell him that we are working on this, that a joint bridge committee has approved the design and layout to provide a span of 1,000 ft. and a clearance of 180 ft. with associated road works. More detailed design work is proceeding. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary met the members of the joint committee in February and a further meeting will shortly take place. The cost will be about £6 million.
  The right hon. Member for Argyll and other hon. Gentlemen opposite had a lot to say about the hold-up in hydro-electricity, for which I have apologised to Parliament. I would very much like to have been able to give a speedy answer on this one, but such an answer might have been wrong. I am concerned because I know the importance of these schemes. However, I refuse to be chided by the right hon. Gentleman about it. It was in 1960 that these schemes were stopped and during the whole time when he was Secretary of State he did nothing to expedite decisions. Do not let him tempt me to say more on this subject now. The Hydro-electricity Board is, in the meantime, exploring the possibility of a further pumped storage project using Loch Sloy as a lower reservoir and Loch Lomond as an upper reservoir. It is also examining possible means of reducing the conventional scheme costs, in particular the cost of dams.
  The right hon. Member for Argyll got his facts slightly wrong on another issue. Indeed, he is getting rather bad when it comes to facts—as bad in the afternoon as he was the other day at two or three o'clock in the morning, when we were discussing the Judges' Remuneration Bill. He referred to comments in the election address of my hon. Friend the Under-
  156
  Secretary, the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), on advance factories. In fact, the first advance factory was announced on 8th April, 1963, of 10,000 sq. ft. and was allocated in October, 1964, to Progressive Metal Products Ltd. It was occupied in February, 1965, to employ 90 people. This factory was subsequently extended by 9,900 sq. ft. This was approved in September, 1964, and building began in 1965. A further factory was announced on 18th November, 1964. The right hon. Gentleman really should take note of what is happening in Scotland. If he does he will not fall into these blunders. The construction is due to begin in September, 1965, and the factory will be completed in June, 1966.
  The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the progress of the new town at Irvine. This new town was first mentioned in the plan for Central Scotland—it was just a probability then. Later—just before the election—it became a possibility. It was approved in principle, subject to discussions and negotiations with local authorities. The discussions and negotiations with the local authorities are proceeding, based on an interim report on the possible boundaries that I received from the consultant, Mr. Hugh Wilson, either late in May or at the beginning of June.
  I have been asked when a decision will be taken on the expansion of Dounreay. The right hon. Gentleman should really attend here to listen to other Ministers speaking. If he did, he would know that on 14th July last my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology said:
  "The Dounreay Experimental Establishment has worked very satisfactorily, and the next stage is the construction of a prototype. During the next few months the authority will be submitting to me their proposals for a prototype fast reactor. When they have done so, the Government will as soon as possible announce their decision whether the project should proceed and, if so, where the prototype is to be built. This will be brought to the House as soon as possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1965; Vol. 716, c. 527.]
  The Government are not responsible for putting forward these proposals—the Atomic Energy Authority is responsible. The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong.
  The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) and other hon. Members spoke about the prospects of the Forestry Commission being transferred to Scotland.

  157
  The right hon. Gentleman himself knows that his Government decided where that Commission should go—and it is no good hon. Gentlemen saying "No", because I made distinct inquiries. Do they think that I was prepared to let this pass up if there was a possibility of getting it for Scotland? We found the decision had already been taken—
  Mr. Noble Mr. Noble rose—
  Mr. Ross: And the right hon. Gentleman opted out of those discussions. We found that the decision was taken to go to Basingstoke. The staff side agreement had already been reached, and many of the people concerned had bought their houses there—
  Mr. Noble Mr. Noble rose—
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Noble: The right hon. Gentleman is not speaking the truth.
  Mr. Ross: I am—
  The Chairman: Order. If the Secretary of State does not give way, the right hon. Gentleman must not go on trying to intervene.
  Mr. Ross: The right hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray) spoke of the possibility of further help for Eyemouth Harbour—
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  The Chairman: Order. The mere shouting of "Give way" does not make the right hon. Gentleman give way. I ask the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to contain themselves.
  Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to get his answers to the speech be made. It is no good hon. Gentlemen shouting.
  The new entrance to Eyemouth Harbour was recently completed at a cost of £300,000, to which the Government contributed 75 per cent. Local fishermen have complained that the entrance is too narrow, and access too difficult and dangerous. This is a matter for the Eyemouth Harbour trustees, in the first place, and they will no doubt consult me when they have reached a view on the current difficulties. It is as well to leave
  158
  it at that point because, obviously, there will be further consideration of their proposals for changes there.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) spoke about depopulation, and I think that I have covered that subject, but I should like to deal with what he said about Mr. Middleton and the Borders, and the possibility of hon. Members being informed. It is not a question of the Planning Council meeting in the Borders. As a matter of fact, Mr. Middleton was in the Borders meeting representatives of one of the northern Planning Councils, where there might be the possibility of overlapping interests.
  There are sub-committees of the Planning Council at present, but what he was talking about, and I think rightly interpreting what I said, was the local committees to participate in further stages of planning and the implementation of help in this way. This is a matter for the Planning Council itself. I do not seek to dictate to it about how these will be formed and I would not suggest that necessarily M.P.s should be members of them. M.P.s have opportunities in this House to make their points and to find what is going on.
  On the question of siting of a hospital in the Borders, regional hospital boards are given all relevant guidance about future population trends. The Scottish Home and Health Departments take part in these discussions. The hon. Member also asked why Government factories do not manufacture housing components. In fact, they do. I think there are five such factories in Scotland. I opened one on Friday at Livingston and there is another at Falkirk. The one at Livingston is undertaking a contract for 1,000 houses in the new town of Livingston.
  More than one hon. Member spoke about the problems of small villages and their urgency in relation to depopulation. These are matters which we can pursue when we come to the changes which will have to be made regarding the Local Employment Act. This is close to my heart, because I do not see that we should necessarily repeat new town policies in every part of the country. I. do not want to see all the new towns in Scotland in the central area. It may be that we shall have to tackle the question of dispersal. That is implicit in the acceptance by any

  159
  Government of the lessons of the Buchanan Report.
  The same hon. Member spoke rather mysteriously about the loss of 1,000 jobs at Ferranti's. This just is not true. The forecasts have proved wide of the mark and there have been no redundancies to date. The Government have considered the problems of all the firms affected by the defence changes and have taken some action. More than one hon. Member referred to concern about the B.M.C.-Pressed Steel merger. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has been informed that the merger will have no effect in the way suggested. We shall protect the interests of Pressed Steel and the other customers, including Rootes at Linwood.
  I am sorry about the point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). We shall have an opportunity of raising that and it will be better to do so when

  Division No. 262.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Agnew, Commander Sir Peter

  Elliott, R. W. (N' c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Emery, Peter

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Astor, John

  Eyre, Reginald

  Maddan, Martin (Hove)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Farr, John

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick

  Awdry, Daniel

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Foster, Sir John

  Mathew, Robert

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Maude, Angus

  Barlow, Sir John

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

  Mawby, Ray

  Batsford, Brian

  Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Bell, Ronald

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

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

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Biffen, John

  Grant, Anthony

  Mitchell, David

  Bingham, R. M.

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Monro, Hector

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Grieve, Percy

  Neave, Airey

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Braine, Bernard

  Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Page, R. Graham (Crosby)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hay, John

  Peel, John

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Hiley, Joseph

  Pitt, Dame Edith

  Buck, Antony

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

  Pounder, Rafton

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Buxton, Ronald

  Hordern, Peter

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Campbell, Gordon

  Hornby, Richard

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Hunt, John (Bromley)

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Sharples, Richard

  Cole, Norman

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Cooke, Robert

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

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

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead)

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Jopling, Michael

  Stanley, Hn. Richard

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Stodart, Anthony

  Curran, Charles

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Dance, James

  Kirk, Peter

  Taylor, Edward M. (G' gow, Cathcart)

  Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  d'Avigdor-Goldstmid, Sir Henry

  Lambton, Viscount

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Dean, Paul

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Longbottom, Charles

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  the President of the Board of Trade has made his report. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) gets things wrong. If he wanted to know about shipbuilding it would have been a good thing if he had read page 10 of the Daily Express today. He could add to that the contracts placed by Defence Departments respectively.
  Housing completions will fall just now because the former Government did not authorise the building of houses and did not approve tenders. During the last nine months of the previous Government, tenders approved amounted to 17,500, but in the first nine months of this Government 26,000 were approved. Scotland is doing well. It will continue to do better under this Government.
  Question put, That a sum, not exceeding £1,807,000, be granted for the said Service:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 145, Noes 172.

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Whitelaw, William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Wall, Patrick

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Mr. Martin McLaren and

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Mr. Ian MacArthur.

  Webster, David

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  NOES

  Albu Austen

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Alldritt, Walter

  Hattersley, Roy

  Owen, Will

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Palmer, Arthur

  Atkinson, Norman

  Holman, Percy

  Parker, John

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Hooson, H. E.

  Pentland, Norman

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Barnett, Joel

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Prentice, R. E.

  Baxter, William

  Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Beaney, Alan

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Bence, Cyril

  Howie, W.

  Randall, Harry

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Hoy, James

  Rankin, John

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Redhead, Edward

  Bessell, Peter

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Blackburn, F.

  Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)

  Richard, Ivor

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Boston, Terence

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Jay, Rt. Hn, Douglas

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & Fbury)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c' tle-on-Tyne, C.)

  Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

  Silkin, John (Deptford)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Kelley, Richard

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Chapman, Donald

  Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

  Small, William

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Lawson, George

  Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank

  Cronin, John

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Stones, William

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Swingler, Stephen

  Dempsey, James

  Loughlin, Charles

  Symonds, J. B.

  Doig, Peter

  Lubbock, Eric

  Taverne, Dick

  Dunn, James A.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  English, Michael

  McCann, J.

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Ennals, David

  MacColl, James

  Thornton, Ernest

  Ensor, David

  MacDermot, Niall

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  McGuire, Michael

  Tinn, James

  Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)

  McInnes, James

  Tuck, Raphael

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Foley, Maurice

  Mackie, George Y. (C'ness & S'land)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

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

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Ford, Ben

  Mason, Roy

  Wallace, George

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)

  Maxwell, Robert

  Whitlock, William

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mellish, Robert

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Garrow, A.

  Millan, Bruce

  Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

  Gregory, Arnold

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Grey, Charles

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Sheffield Pk)

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Neal, Harold

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Newens, Stan

  Woof, Robert

  Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)

  Norwood, Christopher

  Zilliacus, K.

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Ogden, Eric

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  O'Malley, Brian

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)

  Mr. Ifor Davies and

  Hannan, William

  Orbach, Maurice

  Mr. Harry Gourlay.

  Harper, Joseph

  Orme, Stanley

  Original Question again proposed.
  Mr. John Robertson Mr. John Robertson (Paisley) rose—
  It being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report Progress: to sit again Tomorrow.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on the Public Works Loans Bill and the Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Bill [Lords] may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Ifor Davies.]

  WAYS AND MEANS
  [9th July]
  Resolution reported,

  WAYS AND MEANS

    PUBLIC WORKS LOANS
    That it is expedient to require the payment to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, in connection with loan agreements authorised by any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to loans out of the Local Loans Fund, of the sums which would have
    164
    been chargeable by way of stamp duty if each loan made in pursuance of any such agreement had been secured by mortgage by deed, being the only or principal or primary security for that loan.
    Resolution read a Second time.
    Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90 (Way and Means Motions and Resolutions), and agreed to.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Dr. HORACE KING in the Chair]

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL

    Clause 1.—(GRANTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS.)
    Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    10.12 p.m.
    Mr. Peter Walker: During Second Reading the hon. and learned Gentleman the Financial Secretary was kind enough, in his winding-up speech, to give to the House statistics of local authority borrowing. We have now had a week in which to consider these figures and I should now like to put to the Financial Secretary certain queries, because under the Clause it is intended that a sum not exceeding £500 million should be put at the disposal of the Public Works Loan Commissioners.
    The Chairman: Order. I hope that hon. Members remaining will listen to the debate. I must be able to hear whether the hon. Member is in order or not.
    Mr. Walker: I should like to query with the Financial Secretary whether, in view of the facts and statistics which he disclosed, this sum of £500 million is appropriated. The first thing which disturbed us was a statement made by the hon. and learned Gentleman that the average amount of temporary borrowings of the local authorities was 19 per cent. of their total debt, compared with the figure of 15 per cent. when the previous Public Works Loans Bill was before us. The reason for that Bill was to assist the local authorities to reduce the amount which was borrowed by means of temporary borrowings.
    In practice, therefore, one would have expected between the time of the last Bill and the present Bill for the average percentage of temporary borrowings by local authorities if anything to have gone down below 15 per cent., yet we have the startling news from the Financial Secretary that they have actually increased to 19 per cent. This means that many local authorities must be over the average of 20 per cent. which was considered to be
    166
    an undesirable height for temporary borrowings. If the Government are to attempt to follow the advice of the Radcliffe Committee to reduce the amount to below the previous averages the sum of £500 million will not be adequate.
    The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member can denounce the sum of £500 million, but he cannot amend it now. He has lost the opportunity of doing that.
    Mr. Walker: I am asking why the sum of £500 million was decided upon in circumstances in which one would have expected far more heavy borrowings to be required by local authorities.
    The second disclosure since Second Reading is the figure provided of borrowings from the Board during the first 15 weeks of this financial year. It shows that in those weeks the borrowings were running at the rate of over £700 million a year. These are very alarming figures and I felt that the Committee would want to know why if this is the current rate of borrowing by local authorities the Government consider that £500 million will take us well into next year. Naturally, there is widespread concern at the seemingly swift increase in local authority spending and borrowing during the early months of this year. One has the position that in the first three months the amount of local government capital expenditure was £330 million compared with £845 million for the whole of the financial year 1964–65.
    I feel that the Government's suddenly coming to ask for borrowing powers for a further £500 million at a time when local authority capital expenditure has risen to such heights requires further explanation. I should like the Financial Secretary therefore to explain to the Committee why the Government decided on £500 million which, if they intend to reduce the levels of temporary borrowing, would not be adequate and if they intend local authority borrowing to continue at the same rate as for the first three months of this year would not be adequate. Can we be told what are expected to be the future developments and why we are to see the £500 million last, as the Financial Secretary said, well into next year?
    10.15 p.m.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: I should like to add a little to what my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) has said, because Clause 1 says that
    "The sums so issued shall be issued during the period beginning with the passing of this Act and ending on the day on which a further Act granting money for the purposes of those loans comes into operation …".
    This seems to me to be for an indefinite time. We had an indication from the Financial Secretary of what the time will be. Nevertheless we are asked to pass the Bill and the occasion for the new money will be for some indefinite time in the future. My hon. Friend has pointed out that the sum shall not exceed £550 million and he has made some criticism of that. If the provisions in the Clause will enable the Government to limit or control local authority borrowing, why have we this sum of £550 million mentioned in it? If the provisions of the Clause are to apply for an indefinite time, then why not a smaller sum for a shorter period?
    The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman had his chance to suggest a smaller sum for a shorter period when the Clause was at the stage of being amended. We are now discussing the Clause as it stands. This is, in effect, the Third Reading debate on the Clause.
    Mr. Cooke: With respect, Dr. King, I was merely asking why this sum was in the Bill—
    The Chairman: May I try to help the hon. Gentleman? He may ask why this sum is in the Bill, but he may not ask why some other sum, which he thinks should be there, is not in the Bill.
    Mr. Cooke: I am very much indebted to you, Dr. King, for putting it in that way. I am sorry that the way I put it, perhaps, transgressed the bounds of order.
    I think that the Government now realise what my criticism is, and I can only hope that I have not put it in such a way that it will not be in order for the hon. and learned Gentleman to answer my question. At an earlier stage, there were words across the Floor on the subject of discipline in local authority spending, and I hope that, by passing Clause 1, we shall
    168
    not make this more difficult. I hope that I have said enough to give the Financial Secretary a chance to answer some of these questions.
    Dame Irene Ward: I shall at once follow your advice, Dr. King, and attack the £500 million referred to in the Clause. I want to know how the special areas or development districts are now to fare in the division of this money under the Clause. On Second Reading, the Financial Secretary, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke), departed from what the Chancellor originally said about the spending of this money in the special areas. This is extremely disconcerting for all authorities in the special development areas. I have tried to read what the Financial Secretary said, with as much intelligence as I command, but I have been able to find no reliable information about the change from the Chancellor's original reference to the special areas and the allocation of funds to help them.
    Should I be right in assuming that, when the original speech on the subject was made, the detail had never been thought out? It makes matters very difficult and it is very disconcerting for our area—I am arguing at the moment for the North-East Coast—suddenly to find that we are not to be allowed to borrow up to 50 per cent. through the Public Works Loan Board. I want a much better explanation than the rather fluffy one which the Financial Secretary gave on Second Reading. Why did the Chancellor have a different idea when he made his Budget speech? Had he not made any calculation of the amount of money which would be provided under the Bill?
    I want a detailed statement of how much less my local authority, the County Borough of Tynemouth, will be allowed to have under the altered policy. How much less will the North-East Coast get under this new arrangement for borrowings from the Public Works Loan Board? The matter cannot be left like this. It is a quite inhuman approach to the problems of a development district. The hon. and learned Gentleman must know that our difficulty in a development district, apart from the problem of building up new industries, is that over the years, following various depressions, we have had a tremendous leeway to make up.

    169
    I was talking to my town clerk last weekend. We have a very efficient local authority, one which has been regarded by the present Government as being too parsimonious because we try to consider, quite rightly, the ratepayer as well as the expenditure which is necessary. My local authority will be extremely upset because, as the town clerk pointed out the other day, we are under pressure or meet all sorts of commitments.
    For instance, we have an enormous bill for cleaning the Tyne, about which hon. Members opposite, when they were in opposition, were very vocal. My county borough is committed to an enormous amount of money for developing our town centre. We have an enormous number of commitments being poured in upon us. As my town clerk rightly said, ratepayers throughout the area are getting very worried about how the local authorities are to meet the commitments which are being pressed upon them.
    My local authority has a first-class record in housing. It has always been near the top of the list of county boroughs in house building. We have done extremely well. We have done extremely well with roads—
    The Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady is usually perfectly in order. She must not however go into the details of the merits of Tynemouth. She can only ask how much of the £500 million it can now borrow.
    Dame Irene Ward: It is not so much how much it can borrow that I am interested in, Dr. King, but how much less we shall be able to borrow under Clause 1 of the Bill compared with when the Chancellor made his Budget speech. That is what matters to my local authority. I want to know how much extra money, if we meet all the commitments that we are asked to meet, will have to be found because of the change of view since the Chancellor's Budget, and I want to know this in detail. Perhaps when he made his Budget speech the Chancellor thought that money was unlimited, that the sky was the limit and that he could get on by promising everything.
    I think that it is much more important to give so me guidance from the very beginning to the end rather than make promises and lift up people's hearts, making them feel that perhaps they are
    170
    to have a little relief from the financial burdens put on them, only to find that the Financial Secretary then clamps down on them. I should like to know the Financial Secretary's assessment of the clamp. I will not repeat all that was said by my hon. Friend and the reply given to him, for that is in HANSARD for all to read, but I should like to know what it means. How was it that there had to be a retreat from the explanation originally given by the Chancellor? We shall take it very badly indeed. I want to know exactly where we stand. I hope that the Financial Secretary will not give us such a woolly answer as he did when my hon. Friend originally raised this point.
    10.30 p.m.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): I was asked, first, by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) whether the sum of £500 million in the Clause was appropriate. He asked that question in relation to two points. The first point was the answer which I gave to the question which was asked on Second Reading: what is the percentage of total local authority borrowing now which is a temporary debt? That figure, as I said, is now 19 per cent., whereas at the time of the last Bill it was 15 per cent.
    The hon. Member pointed out that it was the policy, and it still is the policy, to keep the overall figure within 20 per cent., and also that individual local authorities should keep their borrowing within 20 per cent. At the time when this policy was laid down in the White Paper of the previous Administration, there were a quite substantial number of the larger authorities whose temporary borrowing was considerably over the 20 per cent. The real objective is to get them down.
    The fact that the total figure is now 19 per cent. and not 15 per cent. is not at all a situation that calls for complacency. Local authorities have, however, been going through a difficult period from the borrowing standpoint. The total figure is still within the 20 per cent. ceiling and it is considered by those qualified to judge that the target—which was not an immediate one; it was over a four-year period—should still be attained of local authorities funding their debt so that their temporary debt is within the

    171
    20 per cent. figure. I am not, however, suggesting that that is something that can necessarily be achieved within a short time.
    The relevance of the £500 million figure in this connection is that it is a relatively small figure, a smaller figure than appeared in the previous Bill of this nature, and it means that we would have to review the matter again during the course of the next year. As I said on Second Reading, it is estimated that this £500 million will last well into the next year, but it means that we will have to look afresh at the whole position of local authority financing and have another Bill of this nature next year.
    The hon. Member's second point referred to the figures which have been published of the borrowing by local authorities over the first 15 weeks of the present financial year. He said that those figures showed that they were borrowing at an annual rate of over £700 million. The hon. Member will, I am sure, be the first to recognise that that is a somewhat unreal way of looking at the position, because at any time there is a tendency for local authorities to want to exercise a higher percentage of their borrowing and borrowing powers at the early period of the year. This year, with a high Bank Rate and with the quota rate being fixed, there obviously was some incentive to local authorities to borrow a higher percentage in the earlier period.
    Hon. Members who have followed the figures will, no doubt, have observed that the borrowing for the third month is substantially lower than that for the first two months. That third month's figure supports the advice which I gave the House on Second Reading that the figure of £500 million in the Bill should last us well into next year. It was on that calculation that this figure was arrived at. We wanted a figure which would last into next year but which would ensure that the House would have an opportunity to reconsider the whole position again during the course of the next year. What I have said answers the question of the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke), who asked why this sum appeared in the Bill.
    The hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) referred to the
    172
    matter which I dealt with on Second Reading about the special assistance being given to local authorities in the less prosperous areas. The hon. Lady found some conflict, she thought, between what I had said and what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said in his Budget speech. I remind the hon. Lady that what my right hon. Friend said was:
    "I propose to give a special measure of assistance to local authorities in the less prosperous areas, or, indeed, in entire regions."
    In other words, he made it clear that at that stage it was not yet decided whether to confine this assistance to certain limited narrow areas or to grant it to regions as a whole.
    My right hon. Friend was saying that this was a matter which needed looking into carefully and that he had not yet reached a conclusion. After referring to what were the existing limits and the decision to raise the 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. generally, he went on to say:
    "I now propose that authorities in the areas eventually selected should be allowed to anticipate the arrangements which we hope to introduce later for all authorities and should be able to get up to 50 per cent. of their long-term money from the Public Works Loan Board this year. I am at present allowing for this purpose a further £40 million for Exchequer loans to local authorities, bringing the net total to £360 million."
    He went on to comment:
    "This is money which the local authorities would otherwise have had to borrow on the market, and the change does not, therefore, make new demands on our resources."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April, 1965; Vol. 710, c. 283.]
    My right hon. Friend made it clear in that speech that he had not yet decided what was the scope of the areas to which assistance should be given, but he was calculating the sum which he was proposing to allow for this purpose, namely, £40 million and that the assistance could be up to 50 per cent. But he did not intend to convey by that that it would in all cases be 50 per cent. to whomever the assistance was granted. Looking into the matter, as I explained on Second Reading, he concluded that it would work more fairly and cause less sense of discrimination if, instead of selecting particular areas, he were to grant this additional assistance more widely to the four regions I mentioned.

    173
    The consequence of that within the ceiling of the total sum which he was proposing to make available was that the assistance which he was able to give was 40 per cent. This is not a reduction or a clamp on what he proposed to do, but my right hon. Friend felt that it was fairer to spread the assistance in this way so that in the end it resulted in 40 per cent. in all cases.
    Mr. Peter Walker: But surely the hon. and learned Gentleman must agree that, listening to the Budget statement, the development districts must have understood that they at least were bound to get 50 per cent., that although some regions might not come under the scheme the development districts had every reason to anticipate 50 per cent. in the last three or four months. Yet, suddenly, there has been the announcement not only that not everybody will get 50 per cent., but that nobody will get 50 per cent. and that the maximum will be 40 per cent. This must have been very disappointing for the development areas.
    Mr. MacDermot: That certainly was not my right hon. Friend's intention. It shows the difficulty of choosing words precisely so as to avoid confusion if that is how the matter was understood. That is why the decision has been given in this form.
    The hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth asked what would be the amounts which particular areas—and she mentioned Tynemouth—would be able to borrow. Since the right is given in terms of percentages, that is a question which I cannot answer and it is a question which nobody can answer at this moment, because it is not until the local authority has determined what its long-term borrowing will be that it will know at what figure the 40 per cent. will work out.
    Dame Irene Ward: After that explanation about our misunderstanding of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, can the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether anybody in any of these regions has had up to 50 per cent.?
    Mr. MacDermot: Up to 40 per cent.?
    Dame Irene Ward: The right hon. Gentleman said that they could borrow up to 50 per cent. After the new
    174
    arrangement, has anybody had up to 50 per cent. on any ground whatever, as the Chancellor said they would? I understand about the £40 million, but why say "up to 50 per cent." and not "up to £40 million which will be fairly distributed"? Why did the Chancellor use the expression "up to 50 per cent."? Has anybody had up to 50 per cent.?
    Mr. MacDermot: No. The result of the decision which I announced is that no authority will be able to borrow 50 per cent.
    Dame Irene Ward: So it was wrong.
    Mr. MacDermot: What my right hon. Friend said was that he had not yet decided what were the areas which were to benefit and, obviously, what could be the ceiling in percentage terms must depend on the decision about the areas. What he indicated was the total amount of funds which he was proposing to make available for the purpose.
    Dame Irene Ward: Why did he not say that before?
    Mr. MacDermot: Because he was making clear that in no case, whatever way matters turned out, would more than 50 per cent. be allowed. That is what "up to 50 per cent." means, but the terms in which the final arrangements were made resulted in a decision which gave 40 per cent. for all the authorities concerned.
    Mr. Graham Page: This really is not good enough. We have not had a proper explanation of this drop from 50 per cent. to 40 per cent., except for a rather vague statement that one must take an overall figure, and not the figure which the Chancellor specifically mentioned in his speech on this subject.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman the Financial Secretary was very clear and very precise in the priority class of this £500 million. Any local authority can get the first £100,000 of its borrowings, 20 per cent. of its capital expenditure, the larger authorities get 30 per cent. and then, quite definitely, the authorities in the regions of Scotland, Wales, northern and north western regions are to get a quota of 40 per cent.
    However he may try to argue that, that does go back on the 50 per cent. which was promised by the Chancellor. The

    175
    words which the Chancellor actually used were "up to 50 per cent. for those in the distressed areas." This is not the first drop in the quotas. My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) argued, during the Second Reading, about the Public Works Loan Board instructions to local authorities concerning quotas out of this £500 million, instructions which had mentioned three-sevenths of total borrowings for 1965–66 as being the quota which they could draw.
    The Financial Secretary could not explain that discrepancy at the time, but he may have an answer now as to why it has dropped from three-sevenths to 30 per cent. for the local authorities quota generally. Perhaps there is to be a further reduction before the Bill reaches the Statute Book, as a result of the weekend announcements about cutting public expenditure? We are relying on what the Financial Secretary said in the Second Reading in not putting down amendments to this Clause. Now, over the weekend, we have been told that there is to be a cut in public expenditure. Does this mean there is going to be a slowing-down in the rate at which local authorities can withdraw from the £500 million?
    There is a second matter which the Financial Secretary has left in doubt, and that is the amount of the £500 million to be used for the remainder of this financial year. In his Second Reading speech he stated that the estimated borrowing for 1965–66 from the Public Works Loan Board would be £470 million, but that only £360 million has to be found. Of that £360 million does any come from the previous £650 million provided by the Public Works Loan Board, or does it all come out of the £500 million about which we are now talking?
    The Financial Secretary said that the £500 million will last well into next year. Could he say what we shall have left of the £500 million by next April? How much of the £360 million which is to be drawn by local authorities, or which it is estimated will be drawn by them this year, will come out of the £500 million and how much has already come out of money previously provided? These are the sort of questions which have not been answered, which leave us in grave
    176
    doubt, particularly as we have been given one set of figures by the Chancellor and another set by the Financial Secretary. Are we to expect a third set from the Prime Minister tomorrow?
    10.45 p.m.
    Mr. Eric Ogden: Some hon. Members opposite—
    The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member must learn not to speak until he is called. Mr. Ogden.
    Mr. Odgen: I apologise, Dr. King. Some hon. Members opposite have changed their ground since the Second Reading debate.
    Dame Irene Ward: I did not speak in that debate.
    Mr. Ogden: I said that some hon. Members opposite have—especially the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker). There was no suggestion by them then that local authorities would be disappointed in receiving an extra allocation—from 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. My experience is that no local authority expects money to be made available until the precise terms are made known. They do not count the cash until it is in their share of the "kitty".
    The authorities with which I am particularly concerned, in the Liverpool and Manchester areas—although they would have preferred all the authorities in the area to have had 50 per cent. instead of 40 per cent.—are quite willing to accept a situation in which the whole area is included, because they do not regard themselves as island cities.
    In the Second Reading debate hon. Members on this side said that the Bill was welcome, and nothing has happened since then to make them think that it is any the less welcome.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    10.48 p.m.
    Dame Irene Ward: I want to return to what I was saying before. I cannot understand why the Chancellor, if he knew that he was going to allocate only £40 million, said "up to 50 per cent." If he had thought the matter out at all he would have known that he should have said "up to 40 per cent." I am sure that since all this was planned the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary and the whole of the Treasury are now trying to reduce expenditure, because, having had such vast expenditure thrust upon them, very few local authorities in my part of the country have any money left to spend.
    I am certain that the whole reason for this drop from 50 per cent. to 40 per cent. is to be found in the fact that the Treasury is trying to save money out of the special areas, in spite of all its promises and pledges. Will the Financial Secretary, instead of merely nodding, kindly say why, if the Chancellor had not got his plans quite settled—as I would quite understand—he gave the impression that everybody might be getting 50 per cent., when it turns out that they will get only 40 per cent.?
    Are not we to have some explanation why, as soon as it was announced that some areas and regions would be specially favoured, there was a tremendous amount of representation through the Association of Municipal Corporations and all the county council associations, which caused the Treasury and the Chancellor to get cold feet about the special areas? Special areas which require help in my part of the country are easily defined.
    Why did the Chancellor say, "Up to 50 per cent." when any sensible person could have simply given the figure? It is as simple as that—and that is the explanation which I seek.
    10.50 p.m.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward). The Financial Secretary must admit that the Chancellor made a complete mistake in mentioning 50 per cent. It was foolish of him to mention it. It was reasonable of him to say that he would allocate £40 mil-
    178
    lion for this purpose, but when he said that for special reasons he would give up to 50 per cent. he made certain parts of the country feel confident that they would have up to 50 per cent. Now we are told that no part of the country will get 50 per cent. and that the maximum will be 40 per cent. It would be much easier for the Financial Secretary to admit that the Chancellor should not have said 50 per cent. but should have given a specific sum.
    We on this side of the House have accepted the Bill because we think it necessary to assist local authorities in getting out of the great financial difficulties into which this Government have put them. Local authorities have had to pay more for borrowing money than ever before. Such was the lack of confidence in the Government that there was a great withdrawal of loans to local authorities and the money had to be replaced.
    Let us make no mistake about why we have a Bill which is to last probably less than 12 months. That has never happened before with a Public Works Loans Bill; such Bills have always been for longer periods. The only reason that this is for a shorter period is that if it had been for a normal period the sum involved would have been so gigantic that the Government would have been embarrassed. The amount is £550 million, which is likely to last less than a year at the present rate.
    The Government have promised a fundamental examination of local government finance. Like so many of their promises, nothing has come of it. There is no sign of it. Local authorities are continuing to have to borrow money at high rates of interest, where they can get it. Although we consider that the Bill is necessary to help local authorities in the great dilemma in which the Government have put them, we want to make it clear that if the economy had been handled properly, the taxpayers of this country would not have been called upon to lend this money.
    10.53 p.m.
    Mr. MacDermot: One would almost think that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) was a candidate for an office judging by the fervour with which

    179
    he spoke. But his fervour comes ill from that side of the House, particularly when we recall the estimates of the previous Administration as to how long the sum would last which was authorised by Parliament under the previous Public Works Loan Act. On Second Reading I sought to be generous and conceded that it is difficult to estimate in these matters.
    But if local authorities are suffering under a difficulty in meeting their borrowing needs, that is not a result of any situation which we have created but as a result of a situation which hon. Members opposite bequeathed to us. They know full well what was the situation with which they would have had to deal had they been returned to power at the last election.
    The hon. Member returned again, supporting his hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), to the question of the 40 per cent. of this assistance for special areas. I can only repeat what I said; that my right hon. Friend did not promise that there would be a 50 per cent. entitlement. If he had intended that he would not have used the phrase, "They should be able to get up to 50 per cent.". My right hon. Friend made clear the amount of money which was being made available for this purpose, which was £40 million. I assure the hon. Lady that there is no question of any resiling from that figure, of my right hon. Friend changing his mind or of there being some intervention of Treasury meanness. This figure was thought right, and I do not think that any one has criticised the decision that it would be fairer and better to spread this assistance over the four regions. To get that result within the ceiling which my right hon. Friend had indicated resulted in an entitlement of 40 per cent. of long-term borrowing.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: I intervene briefly to support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) and to point out that the Financial Secretary's explanation of this whole matter was completely unsatisfactory.
    We have heard that 40 per cent. is somewhere up to 50 per cent., so to speak, or is four-fifths of the way up to 50 per cent. The Financial Secretary has not answered the question at all, and I am glad of this opportunity to tell him that.
    180
    Indeed, it is typical of the sort of explanation we have had on so many Measures, although I will not digress and attack the Financial Secretary on other matters.
    I welcome the Bill for what it gives us, although it does not give us what was promised. The Measure is vitally necessary in the present crisis of confidence and it must go forward to provide money for local authorities. For that reason, but somewhat reluctantly, I support its Third Reading.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  BACKING OF WARRANTS (REPUBLIC OF IRELAND) BILL [Lords]
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  10.58 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Home Department (Miss Alice Bacon): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The Bill has a simple but very necessary purpose. It will clarify the arrangements by which we in this country return criminals or suspected criminals to the Republic of Ireland on application of the Irish authorities and, at the same time, it provides certain safeguards for the accused persons. Some of these safeguards are here introduced for the first time.
  The Bill also provides for the return of offenders from Northern Ireland to the Republic, for which there have been no effective arrangements during the last 35 years. The House will know that for many years we had been returning accused persons to Ireland and the Irish authorities had been returning people to this country under powers which have since been declared unlawful. In this country we were able to meet this disturbing situation by a stop-gap Order in Council, but because the Irish did not have a corresponding power it has been impossible for some time for us to obtain the return of wanted persons from Ireland.
  Hon. Members will be glad to know that in Ireland a similar reciprocal

  181
  Measure—the Irish Extradition Act—has now been signed by the President of the Irish Republic and will come into operation on 16th August. From that date is will no longer be possible for British criminals to go to Ireland safe in the knowledge that they cannot be returned.
  The Measure we are considering will operate in such a way that where a warrant for the arrest of a person accused or convicted of an offence in the Republic is sent to this country for execution, it will not be endorsed unless, in the case of a summary offence, a summons has been issued first. Nor will a court order a person's return if it appears that the offence is one that is excluded by other provisions of this Bill—that is, political, military or fiscal offences.
  Moreover, an order for return, if made, will not be executed for 15 days, except with the consent of the person affected, in order that he may have an adequate opportunity to apply, if he wishes, for a writ of habeas corpus or, in Scotland, to make an application for review by the High Court of Justiciary. Similar safeguards as regards return to this country from the Republic have been included by the Irish authorities in their own Bill.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) asked on Second Reading and in Committee whether the various safeguards I have mentioned and which are now being introduced for the first time were adequate; whether, for instance, it should be a requirement that prima facie evidence should be furnished on every occasion when a person's return was sought, or that there should be power for the courts not to return a person where, because of the triviality of the offence, it would be oppressive to send him back.
  We are quite firmly of the view that we have gone as far as is necessary or practicable to go. We are here dealing with neighbouring countries between which there is a large and constant flow of persons without immigration controls; countries, moreover, whose systems of law and judicial procedure have a common basis, and are still very closely aligned. It is, in our view, unnecessary that what would be, in effect, committal proceedings should be held in this coun-
  182
  try and again in Ireland. My hon. and learned Friend need not fear that those accused of trivial offences will be sent back, for summary offences carrying less than six months' imprisonment are now in any case being excluded, as they have not been in the past. Important safeguards have now also been introduced into the procedure.
  On this basis, I confidently commend the Bill to the House. When the corresponding Irish legislation comes into operation next month, we shall again be able to secure the return of offenders from the Republic, which has not been possible since the ruling of the Irish Supreme Court last year. The main provisions of our own Bill, when it has been placed on the Statute Book, will be brought into effect a little later by an Order made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
  This will be done as soon as the necessary magistrates' courts rules have been made, and the various exceptions, adaptations and modifications in procedure which will be required in the application of the Act to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man have been worked out. Meanwhile, the Irish will be able to continue to secure the return of offenders from here under the old arrangements with us, but there is every expectation that if the House agrees to this Measure, as I urge that it should, the new procedure should be fully working in both countries by the autumn.
  11.4 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Buck: This is a Bill which, basically, the Opposition are inclined to welcome, but we should like some further reassurances from the Government about certain of its aspects. As was outlined by the hon. Lady the Minister of State, Home Office, after the decision last year in the case of The Queen v. The Commissioner of Police, ex parte Hammond Hard, Ireland became a place where our criminals could resort with impunity—as they can today. We should like further assurances about when this Measure will be brought into operation.
  The hon. Lady has said that in accordance with the provisions of Clause 13, after the various steps to implement the changes necessary in the magistrates' courts rules and so forth have been brought forward, it will come

  183
  into effect. How long will it take? The autumn is much too long to wait. Ireland has been for far too long a place where our fugitives could go with impunity. What is the position today? If a train robber is detected in Ireland he cannot be brought back here; he can get on to an aeroplane and go to Guatemala, without the possibility of being brought back here.
  Miss Bacon: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. It depends on when the Irish Bill is brought into operation. The Irish Bill will come into operation on 16th August.
  Mr. Buck: That is quite definite, is it? It is not tied to any date on which our provisions come into force?
  Miss Bacon: No.
  Mr. Buck: So there is no reciprocity. At an earlier stage there were indications that there might be reciprocity in bringing this provision into effect. That is some assurance to us.
  Nonetheless, it is important to know just when the whole position of fugitives who come here from Ireland will be tidied up. We would like to know when the provisions of the Bill are likely to be brought into effect. It may be thought that there has been a saga of considerable delay. The Queen v. The Commissioner of Police: ex parte Hammond, which is basic to the consideration of the Bill, was considered judicially in the House of Lords in June, 1964. Thereafter, the Government of the day acted with great expedition to preserve the position of people coming from Ireland to this country, and brought forward the Republic of Ireland (Consequential Adaptation of Enactment) Order, 1964, which made it possible for us to return fugitives to Ireland. As we have heard, for technical reasons the Irish could not do the same for us, which was a pity. But the Conservative Government took immediate steps to draft legislation and enter into negotiation with the Irish Government, and it is surprising that, with the Government inheriting a Bill almost in draft form, it has taken such a long time to bring it before the House today for Third Reading.
  All along the line, there has been delay. It was brought before the House
  184
  of Lords, where it was introduced as long ago as 21st January of this year. It came before this House on Second Reading in February. Why was there the tremendous delay between then and the Committee stage in June, and why, now, has it taken more than a month to come on for Third Reading? Is it because there have been difficulties in the negotiations with the Republic of Ireland? If there have been difficulties, let us hear about them. After all, we are a neighbour country and a friendly country. Our relationship can stand the revelation of difficulties in negotiations, if there have been any. If there have not been difficulties, let the Front Bench opposite say so, because we on this side have the impression that there have not been.
  If there have been no difficulties, the long delay in bringing the legislation forward must be because it has been squeezed out of the legislative programme by socialist measures such as the Finance Bill. We would like further assurances on the timing of the whole matter from the Front Bench opposite.
  Further than that, we on this side are inclined to welcome the Bill. After all, it was largely our side which drafted it and therefore it is hardly surprising that we should basically welcome it. But we should like assurances about its whole timetable.
  We have given careful consideration to the questions of safeguards which were raised in Committee. We on this side take the view that, considering the juxtaposition of the two countries, the procedure envisaged in the Bill gives proper protection, bearing in mind the close similarity that there is between the judicial processes in the Republic of Ireland and in this country. On that score, Her Majesty's Opposition are satisfied with the provisions of the Bill. We are not satisfied, however, with the laggardly way in which this whole matter has been dealt with by the Government, and we should like an explanation of why there has been such a vast delay with the Bill, and why it has been such an unconscionable time coming to Third Reading.
  11.10 p.m.
  Mr. David Weitzman: This Bill was prepared by the late Government and

  185
  adopted by the present Government. It was prepared, apparently, by the late Government because of a judgment in the House of Lords in the Hammond case which has been referred to. I think it is extremely important that the House should appreciate what happened in the case of Hammond. Hammond was a man who was arrested on a warrant charging him with wilful neglect of his two children in Ireland in such a manner as to be likely to cause them unnecessary suffering and injury to their health. He was arrested and the warrant was issued which was required to be backed. He swore an affidavit in which he said that, far from his neglecting his children, his wife had left them and returned to Ireland, and he disputed the paternity of one of the children and he said that he intended to bring divorce proceedings. He had made an attempt to try to effect a reconciliation with his wife, and sent money on a number of occasions no replies had been received and no complaint of any kind. He was entirely unaware of the proceedings.
  The point made was that there was no opportunity for him to put his case before the magistrate when application was made for the backing of the warrant and the magistrate had no right whatever to interfere in the matter, and all he had to do was to back the warrant and to send the man back.
  The appeal in Hammond's case succeeded upon a technical point, the fact that the office of Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary had been abolished. It is important to see what Lord Reid said in his judgment. He said:
  "It is a serious matter if in a case of this kind a person can be sent under arrest out of Her Majesty's dominions without any warning or opportunity of preparing or stating his case or applying for bail or of representing the hardship which was involved for him."
  In view of that judgment this Bill was introduced, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State has said that safeguards have been provided. True enough, safeguards have been provided. Safeguards have been provided, for example, in the case of offences specified in the warrant of a political character or an offence under military law, or an offence under an enactment relating to taxes, duties or exchange control, and also where there
  186
  are substantial grounds for believing that the person named or described in the warrant will be prosecuted or detained for another offence. Safeguards have been put forward, quite rightly, in that way.
  I appreciate the fact that safeguards have been put there, but if one looks at Clause 1(1)—and on Third Reading one may refer only to what is in the Bill—one sees that where
  "(a) a warrant has been issued by a judicial authority in the Republic of Ireland … for the arrest of a person accused or convicted of an offence against the laws of the Republic, being an indictable offence or an offence punishable on summary conviction with imprisonment for six months; and (b) an application for the endorsement of the warrant is made to a justice of the peace in the United Kingdom by a constable who produces the warrant and states on oath that he has reason to believe the person named or described therein to be within the area for which the justice acts"—
  the justice endorses the warrant.
  It is perfectly true that cases which do not come within Clause 1(1,a) of the Bill will not apply, but the Bill does apply to indictable offence or offences punishable on summary conviction with imprisonment for six months. That means that where there is an offence which is indictable, or an offence punishable on summary conviction with imprisonment for six months, the same old procedure applies, with the exceptions I have mentioned, political offences or offences relating to taxes and so on.
  Under this proposed enactment, this will be the position. There are many offences, including, for example, larceny, receiving, unlawful wounding, dangerous driving, motoring offences and even common assault which can be dealt with on indictment. Therefore, for these offences the position remains the same as it was before. We have the serious position that in cases of that kind all that happens is that a warrant is issued by the judicial authority of the Republic of Ireland and application is made for endorsement of the warrant and the magistrate must back the warrant and send the man back.
  In other words, if the Hammond case were one of these offences he would have no right to present any defence and there would be no burden on the prosecution to present a prima facie. case. Under the Extradition Act and the Fugitive Offenders Act in the cases of offences

  187
  overseas a person has the right when an application is made to the magistrates to demand that a prima facie case should be shown. If not, he has the right to ask the divisional court for a writ of habeas corpus.
  Here we have a proposed enactment which prescribes that in these cases a man may be sent back to Ireland. A prima facie case may be shown and the man has no chance of presenting any defence whatsoever. Let hon. Members imagine a man who is arrested for a motoring offence alleged to have been committed in Northern Ireland. It is an indictable offence. The man may not be the person concerned. He might be able to put forward some defence and the prosecution might not be able to put forward a prima facie case but he is sent back and tried in Ireland. This is what the Bill provides, and I say with the greatest respect that there is no reason why the provisions in the Bill should not be on the lines of those in the Fugitive Offenders and Extradition Acts.
  There is no reason why Ireland should be differentiated in any way. It is all very well to say that Ireland is near and that people might escape there. I value much more the right of an individual to liberty and to demand that a case be shown against him and an opportunity be given to him to defend himself much more than any question of whether criminals go to Ireland. I listened with surprise to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck). I raised this matter on Second Reading and in Committee, and I put on record again my objection to this Measure.
  11.19 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Bessell: The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) has made a strong case. Whilst I sympathise with the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) about the delaying of an important Bill, at the same time I feel that the liberty of the subject is something for which all of us must have special care. If the Bill goes through without our taking care to ensure that there is no infringement of the liberty of the individual, whether he be Irishman or Englishman, we shall have done less than our duty and we shall not have upheld the best traditions for which our
  188
  country is justly famed throughout the free world.
  The very essence of our freedom, the essence of the things for which we have stood and fought for so long, is touched by a Measure of this sort. If we transgress, if, through carelessness or even through haste, we allow the Bill to pass without making certain that every possible precaution has been taken to prevent a miscarriage of justice which might result in someone, for a comparatively minor offence, being returned to Eire without his having an opportunity to state his case before a British court, this will be something which none of us ought to accept with equanimity. I hope, therefore, that the Solicitor-General will deal with this point carefully and will be able to assure the House that our fears are groundless.
  11.21 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): It appeared to me that both the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) were in similar error about the genesis of the Bill. They both said that we had inherited it from the previous Administration and that it had been drafted by them. Let us have the position clear. It is true that the previous Government authorised the preparation of legislation on this subject, but the Bill itself, as now before the House, was drafted by the present Government.
  Mr. Weitzman: What a pity.
  The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member for Colchester complained about delay. We are responsible only for what happens in this country. The return of wanted persons from this country to the Irish Republic is covered by the existing interim arrangements, so that, in practice, the Bill makes very little difference in that respect. But, obviously, it was desirable, when we were introducing permanent legislation, to ensure that, so far as possible, it coincided with similar legislation on the other side of the Irish Channel. That is what is happening. My hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Home Office told the House that the Irish legislation is to become law on 16th August, and we are arranging to bring

  189
  this Bill into effect very soon afterwards, so that, so far as it can be arranged, there is coincidence between the legislation on the two sides.
  Mr. Buck: If we had acted expeditiously in preparing this legislation, we should have been in a much stronger position, through the usual channels across the Irish Channel, to make representations and to influence the situation in the Dail so that the Irish Government brought their legislation forward much earlier than they did.
  The Solicitor-General: There is no basis for that at all. The Irish Government have their own legislative processes, and there is nothing to show that their legislation could have been passed any more quickly if we had expedited this Bill earlier in the Session.
  The only other matter was raised by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell). My hon. and learned Friend is nothing if not persistent. It is an admirable quality, of course, but he will forgive my saying that we have already listened twice to the speech he gave tonight, once on Second Reading and once in Committee. It was an admirable speech on each occasion, but I am bound to give the same reply. First, I remind the hon. Member for Bodmin that the Bill contains safeguards regarding fugitives being returned to Ireland which have never existed before, the safeguards regarding political offences, military offences and fiscal offences.
  Mr. Weitzman: Will my hon. and learned Friend—
  The Solicitor-General: Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will let me finish my answer to the hon. Member for Bodmin. There is the safeguard, which has never existed before, that the fugitive must be brought before the court and that there must be a 15 days' delay before he can be sent hack. All that is perfectly new. All that is a step in favour of the liberty of the subject.
  Now we come to the issue between my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North, and myself, which we have already argued out twice; that is, whether the return of fugitives to Ireland should be governed by precisely the same law as the return of fugitives
  190
  to foreign countries under the extradition Acts or to Commonwealth countries under the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881. Having regard to the geography and the fact that a very large number of persons have to be returned from this country to Ireland and from Ireland to this country each year—it is about 100 a year each way—we say that different considerations apply. Where one has, as between this country and Ireland, no immigration controls whatever, the position is quite different from that where one is returning somebody to a country which is halfway across the world. That is why we say that it would be quite inappropriate to try to apply to the return of fugitives to Ireland the same kind of arrangements that we quite rightly have when we are dealing with the return of fugitives to foreign countries or to distant Commonwealth countries.
  I do not want to cover again the ground that in reply to my hon. and learned Friend I have already tried twice to traverse. Therefore, I invite the House to pass the Bill.
  Mr. Weitzman: Will my hon. and learned Friend agree that safeguards do not exist in regard to the offence which I mentioned and that the position remains exactly as it was in the Hammond case?
  The Solicitor-General: We have had an assurance from the Irish Government that a return will not be sought in such cases as the Hammond case. The distinction simply is that—I agree with my hon. and learned Friend—in the sort of case to which he has referred it is not necessary that a prima facie case should be established before the magistrate before the fugitive can be returned, and in that respect there is less protection than under the Fugitive Offenders Act. On the other hand, there are certain forms of protection here, particularly in regard to political, fiscal and military offences, which do not exist under the Fugitive Offenders Act, so that in some respects the fugitive who is sought to be returned to Ireland is in a stronger position than one who is sought to be returned to a Commonwealth country. I say again that one cannot really equate the two positions. One is dealing with an entirely different situation when one is dealing with the return of a fugitive to

  191
  Ireland. Therefore, we suggest that different arrangements are wholly justified.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

  BRISTOL BUS FARES (OLD-AGE PENSIONERS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Howie.]
  11.28 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Palmer: In the great and ancient City of Bristol, the Central constituency which I have the honour to represent is largely, if not entirely, the oldest part, and probably it has more elderly people resident within its boundaries than any other part. There are two reasons for that. First, it is a general and natural tendency in the shifting of population for the younger, more energetic people, those with families, to move to the outer parts of a city, the elderly remaining behind. Also, in Bristol the city corporation, in connection with its new flat dwelling schemes, is rehousing in the central part of the city a fairly high proportion of elderly people because that is felt to be more socially desirable.
  Therefore I make no apology at all for raising this issue again, because my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary knows that I have already put down a Question to him on the point. I think that it will be generally accepted on both sides of the House that the care of the aged is a matter of increasing public concern. It is sometimes said that the elderly should not be helped in kind, but only by means of adequate pensions. Contributory pensions have been improved fairly recently, but it has always seemed to me that, in any case, that is an excessively theoretical argument, because in a full employment economy, with an observed trend, under Governments of both parties, towards an inflation of prices and charges, that a limited number of benefits in kind to those who cannot adjust their incomes according to changes in the price level is perfectly justified. Among such
  192
  benefits I should have thought we should rank highly concessionary travel for old-age pensioners, for at least short distances, because this opportunity to move about to visit friends and relations helps a great deal to reduce loneliness and the isolation that all too unfortunately sometimes goes with old age.
  The principle of concessionary travel in cities is already accepted in legislation, particularly by the Public Services Travel Concessions Act, 1964, passed during the time of the present Parliament. As the law now stands, all local authorities who run their own buses have the power to grant travel concessions on their vehicles to certain classes of travellers, including men over 65 years of age and women over 60 years of age. The local authorities adopting this principle can if they wish, charge a part, or a whole of the cost to the rates. This useful power has been taken advantage of in a number of cities with public transport undertakings, for example in Liverpool, Birmingham and Glasgow.
  Yet this justified privilege which is now available in many cities is not available in the city of Bristol. In this city the needs of old-age pensioners are just as great as anywhere else, and certainly the cost of living bears on them as hardly as it does elsewhere. But in Bristol the old-age pensioner who travels on the buses, up till now, is obliged to pay the full rate, and he has to do this even if the buses are half empty at off-peak times. What is the reason for this anomaly, this curious state of affairs in which what one can have in many large cities if one is an old-age pensioner, is denied to those in the City of Bristol? It is certainly not that the buses in Bristol are privately-owned.
  The history of the Bristol transport undertaking, as I understand it, is that it was originally owned before the war by the Bristol Tramway Co., with the Bristol Corporation having the option to buy out the Tramway Co. every seventh year.
  It then passed to Tillings, it became part of a larger combine, and at nationalisation was acquired by what was then the British Transport Commission. Now, in the fullness of time and with changing legislation, the owners in part are the Transport Holding Company, still

  193
  a nationalised concern. In 1939, Bristol County Council in part exercised its option and acquired very nearly half the financial interest in the company. Therefore, directly or indirectly, Bristol's transport undertaking is a publicly owned concern.
  If Bristol old-age pensioners do not get this concession which is available elsewhere, it is not because the city council is indifferent to the needs of old-age pensioners; quite the reverse. On a number of occasions it has carried motions, generally supported from both sides of the council, in favour of travel concessions or reduced fares for local old-age pensioners. Therefore—and I press this on my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary—in Bristol there are present the two conditions normally necessary for reduced fares for old-age pensioners, namely, public ownership and a public authority willing to take action.
  The only obstacle is an unfortunate technicality—the absence of joint management of the transport undertaking between the city council and the executive of the undertaking. There is an advisory committee, with three representatives from the council and three from the transport undertaking, which is an influential body, but it does not actually manage the undertaking. That is the difficulty.
  This is the basis of my appeal to my hon. Friend, whose human sympathy and that of his right hon. Friend are well known. I know that the issue has been raised before and that the Ministry has sent representatives to Bristol to discuss at length what I call the technical difficulties, and I am not for a moment suggesting that the Ministry is remiss. I know that it has taken great trouble to go into the technical problem.
  What concerns me, as I am sure it concerns hon. Members opposite who sit for Bristol constituencies, is whether, with such a wealth of good will in the Council—and I must say that I have had courteous correspondence with the transport company itself—and in the Ministry, there is no way of getting over the technical legal difficulty, if it is one. I express doubt because, from information given to me, I understand that in York, where ownership conditions are roughly similar, the authorities have gone ahead
  194
  and granted reduced fares to old-age pensioners. Perhaps they are taking a risk that some irate or, some might say, mean-spirited ratepayer, who would nevertheless be within his rights, will ask for an injunction against them in the High Court. Can my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary tell us how York has been able to go ahead? Are the authorities there taking a legal risk, or has the technical problem been overcome? Any information which my hon. Friend can give will be of the greatest interest to the people of Bristol.
  The issue is of concern in other places also. Brighton, which has been mentioned to me, does not have an exactly similar problem, but the state of affairs there is generally analogous and, presumably, there are other places which have this difficulty. Therefore, in giving an answer to us in Bristol, my hon. Friend may be helping other parts of the country and generally clearing up what is an annoying anomaly to those who are anxious to help the elderly in this matter but find themselves frustrated.
  It would not be proper for me to advocate new legislation; that does not come into my case. I am asking whether something can be done within the terms of the existing legislation, which went some way in the matter but, some people might say, not far enough.
  I know that the cost to the rates in Bristol has been discussed between the City Council and the transport undertaking, but I have not gone into this tonight because it is largely irrelevant to my case. The question of cost is, presumably, being dealt with quite satisfactorily in the other cities which have adopted this principle; and if it can be done there, equal success should be possible in Bristol.
  If this debate serves no other purpose, it will give my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary an opportunity to make an up-to-date statement. I assure him that his statement is awaited with interest and hope, not only by the elderly of Bristol, but by welfare social and religious bodies in the city who, like myself, cannot believe that nothing can be done to bring Bristol's position into line with the favourable situation in the matter of travel concessions for the elderly which exists in other large cities.
  11.43 p.m.
  Mr. Martin McLaren: I hope that the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) may like to have the support of one of his colleagues who has, perhaps, known the Bristol buses for a few years longer than he has. I was amused at the outset of the hon. Member's speech to hear him imply that my constituents on the outskirts of the city were a livelier and more energetic lot than his.
  It seems to me that the reasons why the retirement pensioners feel that they would like reduced bus fares, not only in the city of Bristol, but elsewhere, are three in number. The first is that since, I would say, about October of last year, the value of money in their pockets and in their handbags has gone down sharply. Secondly, again since about October, fares have gone up sharply. Thirdly, as the bus company itself admits, the standard of service has been reduced.
  It seems to me that the best assistance that we could render is to see that prices and costs remain much steadier than they have in recent months. That is a subject to which we shall have the opportunity to revert the day after tomorrow, when, on this side of the House, we shall want to show the shortcomings of the Government.
  11.45 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): The topic that my hon Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) has raised tonight is not only one of wide concern, as I know from the correspondence and representations I have received over the last few months, but also a matter of considerable complexity—more complexity than some hon. Members sometimes give credit for. My hon. Friend has raised a basic question, and has asked why the old people in Bristol cannot enjoy the same fare concessions on the buses in their city as are enjoyed by old people in other places where municipal buses are run.
  It is significant that this question is raised at all. Had this debate been taking place a year ago my hon. Friend would probably have had to ask why concessions to old people were so limited and so anomalous in places all over the country. As the House knows, before this Government's Travel Concessions Act
  196
  was passed last year—the first Act of Parliament passed by this Government—concessionary bus fares for old people were deliberately limited, by the Tory Act of 1955, to those which had existed before that date. But we were pledged to do something about this, and we did do something about it. As a matter of urgency we restored the freedom and power of local authorities which had bus undertakings to grant those concessionary fares which they chose to grant.
  I have said that this is a complex matter—and many complexities have arisen in relation to local authorities over the years. It will help my hon. Friend and those who are interested if I state briefly the position which exists. Under the Travel Concessions Acts of 1955 and 1964 certain fares concessions, including concessions to old people—men over 65 and women over 60—may be granted by any local authority which is operating a public service vehicle undertaking to persons travelling on the buses run by the local authority.
  A local authority for this purpose includes a joint committee so operating, on which a local authority is represented. The cost may be borne from the rates, but in the case of a joint committee only up to the proportion in which the local authority shares the general expenses of the committee. Whether a local authority makes use of these powers is entirely in its discretion. Some may not do so, but there is a long tradition in the municipal bus world of concessions for deserving categories of people, such as old-age pensioners and disabled persons, and so on. The 1964 Travel Concessions Act removed the restrictions imposed by the 1955 Act which, in effect, froze the concessions to those which were actually being given at that date.
  Now I turn to the position of non-municipal undertakings. They have always been free to grant concessions, subject to the approval of their fares by the Traffic Commissioners. But non-municipal undertakings must finance their own operations from their revenue; they have no rate fund on which to fall back. To grant concessionary fares may mean in the case of these undertakings higher fares for ordinary passengers or the curtailment of non-paying services. We in the Ministry of Transport know of no bus company which is granting concessions

  197
  to old people in these circumstances, and it is not our policy to persuade these companies to grant concessions. It is a matter which we leave to their commercial judgment.
  It has been argued that local authorities ought to be able to pay for concessions granted to old people by non-municipal bus undertakings. This is a point which we debated last year during the passage of the Travel Concessions Act. It was decided not to extend the Bill to allow local authorities to meet out of the rate fund the cost of concessions on non-municipally owned transport. To have done so would have violated the general principle of local government that local authorities ought not to use public money to subsidise the commercial activities of private concerns. To grant these concessions would have led to a tremendous demand on public funds.
  There is no history of concessions of this sort on non-municipal transport. Bus companies which are privately owned and operate on a commercial principle generally speaking grant children's concessionary fares only, and no other.
  While we thought it right to give all local authorities the permissive powers which some of them had always enjoyed, we do not rely on concessions in kind, such as concessionary travel fares, as a general policy for helping the aged. Our general view is that help should be given for the aged in the form of cash pensions. Beneficiaries should have the money at their disposal in their pensions to spend according to their circumstances, and the benefit should not be confined to those who happen to use any particular form of transport. Everybody knows what the Government have done about raising pensions and social benefits.
  I know that there are a number of places where there is a borderline situation. Bristol is one of them. These situations arise because there are many permutations and combinations in the arrangements between local authorities and non-municipal undertakings for the running of buses and have arisen mostly under private legislation.
  If under the arrangements the local authority remains the sole operating authority running the vehicles, then Travel Concessions Acts powers are
  198
  established. But if there is a joint committee which is purely advisory and does not actually operate the undertaking and run the buses, the Travel Concessions Acts do not apply; or if there is a joint committee which does have these executive functions, the local authority's contribution is limited according to the authority's stake in the undertaking. The basic difficulty which then arises is that the non-municipal undertaking concerned does not feel able to meet the cost of the concessions out of its own pocket, and thus it does not prove possible to arrange a concession scheme.
  We have a great deal of sympathy with local authorities which are in these borderline situations. Indeed, these difficulties were brought out fully when we debated the Travel Concessions Act, 1964. As we said then, we felt that we could only draw a clear-cut line. It would not have been feasible to give local authorities powers to provide rate-assisted concessions in these borderline cases without jeopardising the principle of confining that Measure to municipally owned transport.
  The Bristol Omnibus Company is, of course, one of the nationalised Tilling Group. As such, it operates commercially in the same way as a private company, like other subsidiaries of the Transport Holding Company. Any concessions would have to come out of its own revenue, unless the corporation proves to have the power to meet the cost out of the rates.
  Like all bus operators in present circumstances—faced with rising costs and falling traffic due to competition from the private car—the company, as it is, has great difficulty in keeping its fares down. Concessionary fares—which, solely for the category of old people, would cost in Bristol about £80,000 a year—would require accompanying rises in the ordinary fares for ordinary travellers. My right hon. Friend does not, therefore, feel that he could direct the company to operate concessionary fares in Bristol.
  I do not want to leave my hon. Friend with the impression that the door is completely closed to concessionary fares in Bristol. I understand that the corporation is examining the extent of its powers. It is not, of course, for my right hon. Friend

  199
  to interpret the law or the powers granted under private Acts to local authorities and I do not think it would be right for me to express an opinion on the issue of whether the corporation's arrangements with the Bristol Omnibus Company are such as to establish powers for the corporation to grant concessions or a share in concessionary fares. This is entirely a matter for the Bristol Corporation to sort out and one on which it must take its own legal advice.
  I therefore conclude by emphasising that the peculiar position in which the
  200
  Bristol Corporation finds itself, vis-à-vis the Bristol Omnibus Company, is not one on which my right hon. Friend would care to give an opinion. However, Bristol Corporation may find it possible to grant to elderly people the concessionary fares which they wish.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at two minutes to Twelve o'clock.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Wage Claims
  Wage Claims
  Commonwealth Trainees
  Commonwealth Trainees
  Training Officers (Recruitment)
  Training Officers (Recruitment)
  Engineering Industry Training Board (Levy)
  Engineering Industry Training Board (Levy)
  Stornoway, Barra, South Uist, North Uist, and Benbecula
  Stornoway, Barra, South Uist, North Uist, and Benbecula
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Weekly Earnings
  Weekly Earnings
  Wages
  Wages
  Royal College of Nursing Occupational Health Courses
  Royal College of Nursing Occupational Health Courses
  Docks (Welt System)
  Docks (Welt System)
  Gateshead and Northern Region
  Gateshead and Northern Region
  Industrial Relations (Training)
  Industrial Relations (Training)
  Agricultural Gangs, Norfolk
  Agricultural Gangs, Norfolk
  Benzene and Chromosome Abnormalities
  Benzene and Chromosome Abnormalities
  East Germans (Temporary Travel Documents and Visas)
  East Germans (Temporary Travel Documents and Visas)
  PRISONERS OF WAR (TORTURE AND PUBLIC EXECUTION)
  PRISONERS OF WAR (TORTURE AND PUBLIC EXECUTION)
  SOMALI REPUBLIC (BRITISH COUNCIL)
  SOMALI REPUBLIC (BRITISH COUNCIL)
  DIPLOMATIC SERVICE (RECRUITMENT)
  DIPLOMATIC SERVICE (RECRUITMENT)
  CONSULATE-GENERAL, HANOI (STAFF AND FUNCTIONS)
  CONSULATE-GENERAL, HANOI (STAFF AND FUNCTIONS)
  CAIRO RADIO
  CAIRO RADIO
  U.N. CONVENTION ON THE REDUCTION OF STATELESSNESS (RATIFICATION).
  U.N. CONVENTION ON THE REDUCTION OF STATELESSNESS (RATIFICATION).
  VICTIMS OF NAZI CONCENTRATION CAMPS (COMPENSATION)
  VICTIMS OF NAZI CONCENTRATION CAMPS (COMPENSATION)
  PASSPORT OFFICE, BIRMINGHAM
  PASSPORT OFFICE, BIRMINGHAM
LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
  Ordnance Survey Sheets, Montgomeryshire
  Ordnance Survey Sheets, Montgomeryshire
  National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949
  National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949
  Countryside (Recreational Facilities)
  Countryside (Recreational Facilities)
  National Parks and The Countryside (Statement)
  National Parks and The Countryside (Statement)
  Private Houses (Acquisition and Compensation)
  Private Houses (Acquisition and Compensation)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Cement Shortage, Dorset
  Cement Shortage, Dorset
  Fire Surveyors and Fire Officers (Pay Claim)
  Fire Surveyors and Fire Officers (Pay Claim)
  Patent Office
  Patent Office
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Retirement Pension
  Retirement Pension
  Industrial and Agricultural Workers, King's Lynn (Sickness)
  Industrial and Agricultural Workers, King's Lynn (Sickness)
  National Assistance (Wage Stop)
  National Assistance (Wage Stop)
  Graduated Pensions
  Graduated Pensions
  Industrial Death Benefit
  Industrial Death Benefit
  Retirement Pensioners (Inquiry)
  Retirement Pensioners (Inquiry)
  Retirement Pensioners (Scottish Islands)
  Retirement Pensioners (Scottish Islands)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Immigrants (Compulsory Health Checks)
  Immigrants (Compulsory Health Checks)
  Amputees (Rehabilitation Facilities)
  Amputees (Rehabilitation Facilities)
  Nurses (Numbers and Recruitment)
  Nurses (Numbers and Recruitment)
  General Nursing Council
  General Nursing Council
  Uncollected Prescriptions
  Uncollected Prescriptions
  Industrial and Aircraft Noise, Rugeley
  Industrial and Aircraft Noise, Rugeley
  Mental Health Services, Nottinghamshire
  Mental Health Services, Nottinghamshire
HOSPITALS
  Service Costs (Professional Advice)
  Service Costs (Professional Advice)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  North West and West Midlands Study Groups (Reports)
  North West and West Midlands Study Groups (Reports)
  Wages, Salaries and Dividends (Increases)
  Wages, Salaries and Dividends (Increases)
  National Economic Development Council and Committees (Women Membership)
  National Economic Development Council and Committees (Women Membership)
  Economic Planning Boards (Advice)
  Economic Planning Boards (Advice)
  South-East Study
  South-East Study
SCOTLAND
  Glasgow Education Committee (Deputation)
  Glasgow Education Committee (Deputation)
  Physiotherapists
  Physiotherapists
  Voluntary Service Overseas
  Voluntary Service Overseas
  Schoolchildren (Access Road to Hacklet)
  Schoolchildren (Access Road to Hacklet)
  Potato Harvesting (Living Standards for Workers)
  Potato Harvesting (Living Standards for Workers)
  Agricultural Lime Scheme, 1964
  Agricultural Lime Scheme, 1964
  Motor Rallies (Control)
  Motor Rallies (Control)
  Municipal Tenants (Mutual Transfers)
  Municipal Tenants (Mutual Transfers)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Leprosy
  Leprosy
ROADS
  A.25 (Old Oxted By-Pass)
  A.25 (Old Oxted By-Pass)
  Motorways (Directional Signs)
  Motorways (Directional Signs)
  M.1, M.5 and M.6 (Links)
  M.1, M.5 and M.6 (Links)
  Carriageways (Edge Marking)
  Carriageways (Edge Marking)
TRANSPORT
  Licensed Vehicles, Ross and Cromarty and the Isle of Lewis
  Licensed Vehicles, Ross and Cromarty and the Isle of Lewis
  50 m.p.h. Speed Limit
  50 m.p.h. Speed Limit
  Public Transport Services (Rural Areas)
  Public Transport Services (Rural Areas)
RAILWAYS
  Sabotage (Security of Railway Property)
  Sabotage (Security of Railway Property)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Straw (Utilisation)
  Straw (Utilisation)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Immigration (Nurses and other Hospital Personnel)
  Immigration (Nurses and other Hospital Personnel)
  Vivisection (Photograph)
  Vivisection (Photograph)
  Children (Care and Adoption)
  Children (Care and Adoption)
  Prison Population (Reduction)
  Prison Population (Reduction)
  Prison Department (Mental Health Services)
  Prison Department (Mental Health Services)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Night Operators (Unofficial Action)
  Night Operators (Unofficial Action)
  Shared Lines
  Shared Lines
  Numbering System (International Dialling)
  Numbering System (International Dialling)
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  International Services, Elmdon Airport
  International Services, Elmdon Airport
BRITISH GUIANA
  Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) Act, 1958
  Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) Act, 1958
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  National Service Men (Uniforms)
  National Service Men (Uniforms)
  Territorial Army Emergency Reserve
  Territorial Army Emergency Reserve
  SOCIAL WORKERS (FUNCTIONS AND PRACTICE)
  SOCIAL WORKERS (FUNCTIONS AND PRACTICE)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Schools, Nottinghamshire (Modern Sanitation)
  Schools, Nottinghamshire (Modern Sanitation)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Computers (Tenders)
  Computers (Tenders)
HOUSING
  Local Authority Houses (Transfer Procedures)
  Local Authority Houses (Transfer Procedures)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Metropolitan Green Belt
  Metropolitan Green Belt
  Rural Water Supplies
  Rural Water Supplies
  ELECTIONS (MR. SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE)
  ELECTIONS (MR. SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE)
  MINISTER OF TECHNOLOGY (SPEECH)
  MINISTER OF TECHNOLOGY (SPEECH)
TECHNOLOGY
  Computer Equipment, Government Departments
  Computer Equipment, Government Departments
  Patent Granting System
  Patent Granting System
BOARD OF TRADE
  African Territories (Investment and Trade)
  African Territories (Investment and Trade)

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

EMPLOYED MOTHERS AND CHILD DELINQUENCY
2.35 p.m.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will hold an inquiry into the social effects of the increase in the number of mothers of young and adolescent families who are going out to work; whether this has a direct relationship with the increase in delinquency and what action should be taken by public authorities and employers to prevent the damage to family life which this development may cause.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, such research as has already been done on this question has not given any reason to think that the children of working mothers are more delinquent than other children. The National Survey of Child Health and Development will yield further information and the Government do not consider that a special inquiry is necessary. Preliminary figures provided by the Survey about children whose mothers had worked while they were at primary schools show no significant difference in the delinquency rates.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, has the Minister's attention been drawn to the statement of the Medical Officer of Health for Leicester in regard to this problem? If he has not considered it, would he and his Department do so? Although this Question includes a reference to delinquency, there are many other social problems which are created
992
by this particular development. Does he not think that it is now opportune to have an inquiry into this particular matter on a Government level rather than through private sources?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am quite well aware that this matter gives rise to social problems other than that of delinquency. I have not seen the statement to which the noble Lord referred, but I will look at it. There is a great deal of evidence in support of the Answer I gave to the Question—for example, the National Survey of Child Health and Development, which is a continuous study of some 5,000 children born in 1946. There are many other inquiries which have yielded valuable information.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will also make inquiries of the police authorities, who, as I know from personal experience in my part of the country, are concerned with this problem?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, we are all concerned with developments of this kind, and in particular with delinquency; but I was dealing with the precise Question which the noble Lord put on the Order Paper. The answer to that is the one which I have given.

RHODESIAN DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION AT LISBON
2.38 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: 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 what exchanges have taken place with the Government of Rhodesia regarding its diplomatic representation at Lisbon.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (LORD TAYLOR): My Lords, discussions between the Rhodesian Government and Her Majesty's Government about the question of Rhodesian representation at Lisbon are continuing. The details of

993
such exchanges are, of course, confidential.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while appreciating that Answer, may I ask my noble friend whether acknowledgment of the right of the Government of Rhodesia to have diplomatic representation in Lisbon would not be a de facto recognition of its right of independence and control over foreign affairs? May we accept as a fact that Her Majesty's Government will not grant independence to Rhodesia before—in the words of the commitment of the Government—a Constitution has been accepted by the whole of the people?
LORD TAYLOR: I think that the second part of my noble friend's question was a little wide of the original Question, but, in answer to the first part, Her Majesty's Government's attitude will be governed by the need to preserve Britain's ultimate responsibility for Rhodesia's external relations and for its diplomatic representation in foreign countries.
LORD BROCKWAY: While thanking my noble friend for that additional information, may I ask how it was that the Rhodesian Government was allowed diplomatic representation in Pretoria? Did this not give a precedent which was rather dangerous?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, South Africa was, of course, formerly a Commonwealth country with which Rhodesia had exchanged High Commissioners. When South Africa left the Commonwealth it was agreed that in this special case Her High Commissioner should become known as the accredited diplomatic representative. This should not be taken as a precedent.

SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN PRISONS
2.40 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: 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 for which prisoners solitary confinement is retained.]
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the Prison Rule authorising temporary segregation—that is, removal from association with other prisoners—is Rule 43. In practice this Rule applies to two distinct classes of prisoner. The first is those prisoners—the majority—who, for reasons of their own, ask to be segregated. The main reason for such requests is fear of other prisoners. Such requests are usually granted provided the Governor is satisfied that the request is genuine. The other class comprises prisoners who need to be segregated for reasons of good order and discipline, including security. In no case can segregation be imposed for a period of longer than 24 hours without the authority of a member of the Visiting Committee or Board of Visitors, or of the Secretary of State, and the authority thereby given, cannot exceed one month without reconsideration and renewal. Association must be resumed if in any case the medical officer so advises on medical grounds. The case of every segregated prisoner is considered in the Department at regular intervals, and no prisoner is kept under this Rule longer than is necessary in the interests either of his own safety or of good order and discipline.
Cellular confinement can be imposed upon any prisoner as a punishment for an offence under the Prison Rules. This can take place only after an adjudication either by the Governor, in which case the maximum period of cellular confinement is three days, or for more serious offences by the Visiting Committee or Board of Visitors, when the limit is 56 days.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for that very full Answer? May I ask him whether he is aware—and I speak from experience of eight months in solitary confinement—that it is quite impossible to segregate prisoners from communication, even in solitary confinement? Would he take into regard, particularly with the prisoners who are now doing long service for the train robbery, that solitary confinement may actually increase their determination and their means of escape, more than would association with other prisoners?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I agree that it is impossible to stop all communication between prisoners; in fact,

995
I said as much in the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, on July 14. With regard to the train robbers, the escape of the prisoner Biggs from Wandsworth meant that until police investigations into the escape had reached provisional conclusions it was considered necessary to place the remaining train robbers under segregation. But these cases are being reviewed on their individual merits, and these men will be removed from the Rule as soon as this can be done safely.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what is the average number of prisoners in solitary confinement at any one moment?
LORD STONHAM: The number under Rule 43—if that will answer the noble Lord's question—on July 10 last was 140, of whom 87 were there at their own request, 38 were long-term recidivists and 15 were violent or subversive prisoners.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, am I to understand, from what the noble Lord read out about Rule 43, that it is possible for a man to be given this serious form of punishment not because he has committed an offence but simply because there is a shortage of staff?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I could not accept that it was solely because there was a shortage of staff. The train robbers are adequately supervised from the staff point of view. But I think we shall all agree that this was a particular and special case, and since we have to keep these men in safe custody, we were right to take special steps until the police have made their recommendations, and then these men will be released from Rule 43.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what is the longest time any man now in prison has spent in solitary confinement?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am afraid not, without notice, but it is nothing like the time that my noble friend suggested—eight months—except for Rule 43 segregation as distinct from solitary confinement. There are men, as I indicated, who elect to go on Rule 43 and we cannot persuade them not to. They are not in solitary confinement but they are segregated.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, could the noble Lord perhaps tell me, or find out, the longest time anyone has been segregated? I can think of one case where I have heard it said that there been segregation for years. I do not know whether this is true.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am aware of cases where men have been segregated for years at their own request and where it is impossible to budge them. But I will get the answer to the noble and learned Viscount's question and write to him.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a supplementary, as this is a very serious matter? Am I to understand, then, that if these men are put into solitary confinement for security reasons alone—and he tells me that they are for only a short time—they are brought out when there are signs of psychological reaction, but that it is possible for them to be put back after they have sufficiently recovered?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if my noble friend is referring to involuntary confinement, what she suggests is not possible. I did make it clear that if a man had been "in solitary" for only a short time—a few days—and the medical officer said that he was not fit to continue, then he would be brought out.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, would he be returned or is he out for good?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if a man is put "in solitary", it is subject to a decision by the visiting magistrates. It is for a term. It could be renewed only if they said so, and, a man whose health was affected in that way would not be put back again.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, one appreciates that, in the overcrowded conditions of prisons where sometimes three men occupy one cell, it may be the desire of a prisoner to be put in a cell by himself, but in those cases is exercise in common allowed, which would at least for 40 minutes in the day break the effects of solitary confinement?
LORD STONHAM: Most certainly, my Lords. Rule 43 men are given the exercise and, indeed, they would exercise together.

997
If there was more than one Rule 43 man in a prison—and in some cases, as in the number I gave my noble friend, there are as many as eleven in one prison—all those Rule 43 men would exercise together and they would have the full period.

COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRATION
2.48 p.m.
LORD ELTON: 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 when they expect to announce what conclusions they have come to in respect of immigration as a result of the Report of the Mission led by Earl Mountbatten.]
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the Government intend to announce their policy for Commonwealth immigration before Parliament rises for the Recess.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that surprisingly encouraging Answer, may I ask him whether he realises that it would have been helpful to know the Government's intentions before we debated the Race Relations Bill, since obviously their action or inaction must affect, one way or the other, the psychological climate of the country—and the Bill is really concerned with the psychological climate? Does he also realises that all those who hope to see further restrictions on the present influx, which according to the evidence of the polls means the majority of the electorate, hope that the Government will spend as little time as possible either making up their mind or screwing up their courage?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I do not think it has ever been necessary, and nobody can suggest it has ever been necessary, for this Government to screw up their courage. I would, however, point out to the noble Lord that this matter is of such importance that it would be quite wrong to deal with it over-hastily; that we have had to have full regard to the Report of the vitally important Mission to the Commonwealth countries led by the noble Earl, Lord Mountbatten of Burma;
998
and that if the Government's views and proposals on immigration are published before the Summer Recess there will be ample time to consider them before new legislation, if it should be necessary, is introduced.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned publication just before the Summer Recess. Will that be followed by action during the Summer Recess? Because it is very unfortunate that the House should have no opportunity, after these many months, of debating the Government's proposals. I am sure that many people would like action to follow upon these proposals if the proposals are generally acceptable. I ask the noble Lord: are we to wait until October and then have a debate before we have any action, or shall we get action during the Recess?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, as the noble Viscount is aware, in this matter two kinds of action are possible—administrative and legislative. He is further aware that administrative action has been taking place all the time. If there are further administrative steps which the Government think it advisable to take, and which do not require legislation, they will be taken; but I suggest to the noble Viscount that he awaits publication of the White Paper, when he will be able to judge for himself.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, is it not very understandable that the Government are taking some time over this matter, in view of the fact that they have had completely to reverse their policy?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, is unusually ill-informed in this matter, because long before this Government took office we thought that an essential factor in change was full consultation with the Commonwealth countries. That full consultation has now taken place with the Commonwealth and with the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, and in our new proposals we shall be marching forward together with them. That is vitally different from what the noble Lord said.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying, or did my ears deceive me, that the Labour Party have not changed their policy on immigration?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am quite sure that the ears of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition did not deceive him—they seldom do. I was answering his noble friend's question; and, if he will look at my answer tomorrow he will see that I gave a complete answer to it, so there should be no misunderstanding.
LORD ALPORT: May I ask the noble Lord whether the timing is intended to ensure that no legislation is necessary until after the next Election?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am sorry; I did not hear the first part of the noble Lord's question.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it is not the case that in the Labour Party's Amendment to the original Act there was a declaration that we should reach agreement with the Commonwealth countries? Is he aware that we all welcome the fact that such consultations have taken place, but will he provide some opportunity before the Recess, if a Statement and a White Paper are to be issued, for the House to discuss them?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, it is perfectly true, and known by everyone in the House, that we insisted on consultations. With regard to the finding of time for a debate, that is not a matter for me.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware, or is he not, that the Labour Party opposed the Second Reading of that Bill in the other place—and, in fact, all stages?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am perfectly well aware—
LORD CARRINGTON: It does not sound like it.
LORD STONHAM: Would the noble Lord like to finish his question?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Go on!

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.54 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Taylor will be making a Statement on the Anglo-Maldivian Agreement.
1000
In view of the length of Business and the amount to be done, may I remind the House that suppers will be available this evening?

STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Longford, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the following paragraph be added to Standing Order No. 44A (Printing of Bills brought from the Commons):—("Likewise, if a Public Bill is returned from the Commons with amendments, or Reasons, at a time when this House is not sitting, the Clerk of the Parliaments may, pursuant to this Standing Order, arrange for the printing and circulation of any such amendments and Reasons.")—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Standing Order amended accordingly.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (EXEMPTION) ORDER, 1965
2.55 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD RHODES): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which appears in my name on the Order Paper. Many noble Lords will be aware that on the 31st of this month Part IV and the related Schedules of the Weights and Measures Act, 1963, comes into force. That means that on and after that date a very wide range of pre-packed goods (which have never had to be so marked before) will be required by law to be marked with indications of quantity. As the law stands, this new requirement will apply to all goods (of the relevant descriptions) irrespective of whether or not they had left the premises when they were packed before the critical date, July 31. This draft Order is to alter the law to give distributors a period of grace—a period strictly limited to twelve months—for selling off without quantity markings any pre-packed goods of the kinds covered by Schedule 7 in the case where the goods had left those premises before the end of this month. Such goods will, of course, be a dwindling proportion of the goods of the relevant

1001
kinds that buyers will find in the shops from now on. But there will at first be enough of these goods on the shelves of some shops and wholesalers' warehouses to present serious difficulties to those traders unless we defer this marking requirement. Indeed, in the case of some slow-moving old stocks of lines discontinued by the manufacturer, it would be almost impossible for the retailer to find out what the correct quantities ought to be. The goods affected by the Order are all the kinds of pre-packed goods required by the Act to bear quantity markings except the food and drink items.
Moved, That the Draft Weights and Measures (Exemption) Order, 1965, laid before the House on 24th June, be approved.—(Lord Rhodes.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we on this side of the House very much welcome this period of grace, as the noble Lord has called it. May I just ask him one question? Would he consider giving publicity, in a year's time, to the need to mark all Schedule 7 goods, so that those who are responsible will have the opportunity to bring those goods which are still left on their shelves within the law, and will he make it quite clear at that time on whom that responsibility lies?
LORD RHODES: My Lords, may I say that is a very common-sense suggestion, and I will see that notice is taken of it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WHITE FISH SUBSIDY (UNITED KINGDOM) SCHEME 1965
2.58 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, I beg to move that the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1965, be approved. The Order provides for further subsidies to the white fish industry for the year starting on August 1 next. Before I describe its effect, I should give your Lordships an account of the state of the industry.
This time last year my predecessor was able to report a considerable improvement in the fortunes of the industry. I am glad to be able to tell your Lordships
1002
that 1964 was a year of further improvement. The total catch of white fish increased by 13,000 tons to 719,000 tons, and the value of the catch increased by over £3 million to £51·5 million. The trawler fleet improved its operating profits by roughly 25 per cent., and the inshore fleet secured a 20 per cent. increase in income, which more than covered rising costs. As in previous years, the position has been discussed with all sections of the industry. It is in the light of the improved results and the views expressed by the industry that the subsidy proposals now before us have been prepared. The conditions of subsidy set out in the scheme are the same as in the current scheme. The changes are in the rates of subsidy.
Your Lordships will recall that the Sea Fish Industry Act 1962 provides that subsidies to the trawler fleet (vessels over 80 feet in length) must be reduced annually by between 7½ and 12½ per cent.—an average of 10 per cent. In the first two years, reductions of 7½ per cent. were made by agreement with the industry. There is thus some leeway to make up. In the past year there has been some improvement in the profitability of the industry, and the Government have therefore felt justified in making a reduction of 10 per cent. This has been accepted by the industry. The Government further propose to make the same reduction of 10 per cent. in each of the two following years. This should enable the industry to plan ahead with more certainty. It will be the aim in later years to make larger reductions of up to 12½ per cent. to balance the reductions of 7½ per cent. in the first two years.
The White Fish Subsidy Scheme also provides for special subsidies to be paid to certain groups of vessels which have encountered difficulties of a temporary nature outside their immediate control. It is a reflection of the improved state of the industry that only a few vessels have been found to need this special help. The difficulties on this occasion have been mainly due to adverse fishing conditions affecting these vessels. There are 37 of them, and the total cost is estimated at roughly £32,000. The inshore fleet, of vessels under 80 feet in length, has also had a good year. There is no requirement to reduce the subsidies for these vessels by any fixed amount, but the

1003
Government consider that a reduction of 10 per cent. is justified on this occasion.
For all sections of the fleet the reductions in subsidies will be less than the improvements in earnings. The burdens on the taxpayer is thus being reduced while leaving the industry in a better position. Fishing is notoriously an uncertain business, but I am sure your Lordships will join with me in the hope that these encouraging developments will be maintained, and that you will give your approval to the Scheme.
Moved, That the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme 1965 be approved.—(Lord Champion.)
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has given us a detailed account of the fishing industry and we are grateful for it. I would, if I may be permitted to do so, introduce a small red herring into this discussion merely to congratulate the noble Lord on his achieving yet another birthday. I trust that his preoccupation with white fish will not preclude his possibly enjoying pink fish, or something more exotic, later this evening.
We welcome this Order, which the noble Lord has moved in a speech in which he has given a rather glowing account of the fishing industry, but he will know that in certain sections of it there have been difficulties and also that there are liable to be difficulties in the future. I hope he will be able to give the assurance that the cuts in subsidy which he has foreshadowed will, in fact, be treated sympathetically and that the industry as a whole will be treated sympathetically, in view of the difficulties that some of the people engaged in it are likely to meet in the near future.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for his kind remarks about my birthday. I rather wish that he had not done so; because it might be called to the attention of someone who might think that ministerial Members are much older, on average, than they ought to be; and I might suffer as a result. I am grateful for the welcome that he has given this Scheme, and I can assure him that we shall look carefully at any future Schemes that will be introduced in the light of the circumstances prevailing in the fishing
1004
industry. I hope that it will continue, as it has been doing for some years now to improve its position and make things better for those who are engaged in this difficult, dangerous but essential industry.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HERRING SUBSIDY (UNITED KINGDOM) SCHEME 1965
3.4 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I beg to move that the Herring Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme 1965 be approved. Following relatively good results in 1963, the herring catchers had another generally successful year in 1964. Though total landings in the United Kingdom by British vessels showed a small drop in quantity compared with 1963, the value was virtually unchanged at £2·7 million. When we look behind these total landing figures and examine the situation of the fishermen who are engaged in the fisheries, it is encouraging to find that average profits have generally increased over the year. The herring fisheries are, in the main, carried out by Scottish vessels which fished entirely for herring, the average profits of the ring-net vessels and the 65 to 80 feet drifters showed an increase in 1964, while the profits of the smaller group of 60 to 65 feet drifters were the same as in 1963, which was a good year for them.
I am glad to say that for 1964, the ratio of profit to the improved value of the vessel—and this has been quoted to us by the fishermen's associations as the best index of profitability—was, for most classes of vessels fishing principally for herring, at a level which the associations themselves regard as satisfactory. As your Lordships will know, there is now a greater degree of flexibility in the inshore fishing industry so that many vessels can go out to fish either for herrings or for white fish or shell fish, according to which fishery the skipper deems most profitable in their overall results, the majority of the dual-purpose vessels—those which fished for herring for only part of the year—showed on average increased profits during 1964. It is interesting to note also that, in general, herring fishing proved more profitable to the dual-purpose boats than fishing for white fish.

1005
The general picture, then, of the herring industry is that the profits of 1963 were improved upon last year. We are satisfied that, as in the case of the inshore white fish industry, a step should be taken towards the objective of a viable industry, in comformity with the policy outlined in the White Paper of August, 1961. This will in fact be a second step, since some reductions were made in the herring subsidies in 1963. The Order now before your Lordships proposes a reduction of 1d. per stone in the rate of subsidy paid on the landings of herring by boats under 40 feet in length and a reduction of 10 per cent. in the daily rates of subsidy paid to the larger boats. The herring industry receives some additional assistance in the form of a subsidy paid on herring consigned for reduction to oil and meal, subject to the restriction that no more than 20 per cent. of the total landings in a particular month at a port or group of ports will qualify. In practice, about two-thirds of the herring sold for oil and meal attracts this subsidy, which by the Order will be reduced by 6 per cent. from 25s. to 23·6d. per cent. The conditions applying to the herring subsidy, apart from the changes in the rates, are unaltered. Some minor changes have been made in the Order, largely to maintain uniformity as far as possible with the Order relating to white fish subsidy.
Moved, That the Herring Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme 1965 be approved.—(Lord Hughes.)
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for following his noble friend and giving the details of the herring industry. We welcome this Order also, although it may seem curious to welcome something which, in fact, reduces subsidies; but this was not entirely unanticipated. We therefore give it a welcome.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PUBLIC HEALTH (NOTIFICATION OF BIRTHS) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

RACE RELATIONS BILL
3.9 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the Race Relations Bill be read a second time. I think your Lordships will agree that it is almost impossible to approach this subject without acknowledging the very great work done in this field over the years by my noble friend Lord Brockway. It is many years since, in another place, he first introduced a Private Member's Bill aimed at outlawing racial discrimination. He was not successful then; nor was he in the many other years when he tried to do the same thing. But I am quite sure that we all agree that he has made a very great contribution. He has helped to bring us to the point at which we are now, and we shall certainly look forward to his contribution later in the debate.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I appreciate tremendously what he has said, but I think it ought to be said that my noble friend Lord Sorensen was the pioneer in the matter of introducing legislation against racial discrimination in the House of Commons, and recognition should be given to that fact.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am grateful for that intervention and glad to acknowledge my noble friend's very great contribution.
The Bill we are discussing falls into two distinct parts, the first dealing with racial discrimination and the second with incitement to racial hatred. As your Lordships will be aware, considerable modifications have been made in the first part of the Bill since it was first introduced into another place; the effect of these has been to substitute processes of conciliation for the criminal sanctions originally intended. Should conciliation manifestly fail there is provision for proceedings in the civil courts by injunction. This change was made to avoid bringing the flavour of criminality into the delicate question of race relations.
The change in the Bill has been one of approach, not of objective. This remains that of assisting the integration of immigrant peoples into the community and

1007
the prevention of the spread of harmful and irrational prejudices. The Bill is also intended to support positive efforts towards integration in larger fields, such as employment and housing, of vital importance to everyone, but not in themselves amenable to legislative action. Colour prejudice can best be banished by change of heart rather than change of law but, that acknowledged, we are determined to use the law to banish as far as possible the wilful fomenting of racial prejudices by word, writing or insulting public example.
The first principle we must establish is that people, irrespective of their colour, race or national origin who come here for long or short periods must be treated as an integral part of the general public. For that reason the first part of the Bill is directed against the practice of discrimination in places of public resort. Two considerations in particular have guided the choice; first the necessity to deal with actual or threatened, and not with mere theoretical, abuses; second, that if legislative measures are taken too far they might revolt and offend rather than guide public opinion. The emphasis first is on persuasion, and only if this fails on coercion. For that reason it is not individual acts of discrimination that are declared to be unlawful but the practice of discrimination, meaning a course of conduct. Complaints of discrimination are to be dealt with first by conciliation committees, local in character and informal in their methods of work. It is only when conciliation has failed, and no settlement can be achieved, that a case would be reported to the Race Relations Board, to be established under the Act, whose duty it will then be to consider whether there has been a persistent course of discriminatory conduct which is likely to continue, and which should therefore be reported to the Attorney General with a view to possible court proceedings. Since the issue would be a denial of civil rights the proceedings will be taken in the civil courts and the remedy sought will be an injunction restraining the defendant from committing any further acts of discrimination. Clearly it is only in the most obdurate cases that this sanction will have to be used. If experience in the United States is any guide the great majority of cases will yield to con-
1008
ciliation, and only a very few will ever get as far as the courts. The offender will be given every possible opportunity of reforming his ways, but if he fails to do so correction will be none the less certain and effective.
To turn now to the detailed provisions of the Bill, Clause 1 makes it unlawful for the proprietor, manager or an employee to practise discrimination on grounds of colour, race or ethnic or national origin, in any of the places of public resort specified, which comprise hotels, restaurants, cafés and public houses; places of entertainment, recreation and sport; public transport operating on a regular schedule, and the premises it uses; and other places of public resort maintained by local or public authorities—for instance, municipal libraries, museums or art galleries. The clause declares unlawful the practice of discrimination on grounds of colour, race and so on, but it will still be permissible to refuse entry to a public-house or hotel, or other facilities to any individual on grounds personal to him, irrespective of his colour or race—for instance, that he is dirty, improperly dressed, drunken or a known trouble maker.
Clause 2 of the Bill provides for the constitution of the Race Relations Board, and of the local conciliation committees which the Board is required to appoint. The Home Secretary will not be responsible for the actions of the Board in individual cases but will be answerable for the way in which it conducts its affairs in general and the Board must submit an annual report to him to be laid before Parliament. The independence of the Board from direct control by the Home Office has been emphasised by making the appointment of the whole-time staff subject directly to the consent of the Treasury. We expect members of the Board will serve part-time but they will be assisted by a small full-time secretariat. The local conciliation committees will serve in a voluntary capacity, but they too may require some full-time assistance. If so, it is intended that the appointments should be made by the Board and the officials concerned treated as servants of the Board on post to the committees.
Clause 3 deals with proceedings for enforcement in England and Wales, and Clause 4 with enforcement in Scotland,

1009
the two systems being essentially the same. Proceedings will be brought by the Attorney General or the Lord Advocate, and will be for injunction only and not for damages. This is because the object is not so much to provide compensation for individuals, who may, in fact, have suffered no financial loss through the discrimination practised against them, but to put a stop to a course of conduct which is aimed against a whole class of people and which is contrary to the interests of the public as a whole. Before an injunction can be granted, the court, which in most cases will be the county court, will have to satisfy itself that there has been a persistent course of discriminatory conduct which is likely to continue. It will be for the court to decide the form of injunction, which may be to restrain the defendant from committing further acts of discrimination either against specified individuals or against a specific class of persons, such, for instance, as coloured people in general. Where a person is in breach of an injunction it would be for the Attorney General—or Lord Advocate—to move the court to commit him for contempt.
Clause 5 of the Bill deals with discriminatory restrictions on the disposal of leases, and applies to tenancies existing whether before or after the passing of the Bill. It operates in two ways. First, it provides that where the consent of a landlord is needed to the disposal of a tenancy, any refusal of consent on grounds of colour, race, and so on, should be treated as unreasonable; but with the exception that this will not apply where the tenancy is in a house where the landlord himself lives and where he shares some accommodation with the tenant. Secondly, it converts any covenant which prohibits the disposal of tenancies to people of a particular colour, or race, into one requiring the landlord's consent to disposal; and the provisions of the first part, including the special saving, will then apply. It may be asked why tenancies of the second type are not to be declared void altogether. The answer is that, particularly in the case of certain existing leases, this might have the rather curious effect of depriving a landlord of the right to refuse consent to the disposal of a tenancy to a coloured person even on perfectly legitimate grounds—for instance, that he was an undischarged bankrupt.
1010
I now turn to the part of the Bill dealing with incitement to racial hatred, which, in my view, is designed for only a tiny minority of people in this country. For example, the various Fascist groups, which attempt to achieve notoriety by posting their sticker labels and by their pamphlets, are no more than a few loud-mouthed individuals, who have almost no support from the public at large. Nevertheless, at a time of social strain, these people can attract quite disproportionate publicity by exploiting and intensifying unthinking prejudices about race and colour.
We now have substantial numbers of coloured people in our midst who are only newly arrived and whose need for full integration into society the Government accept. The apostles of racial intolerance may have little effect on people with long-established roots in this country, but it may be quite otherwise with the newcomers. They find it difficult to believe that inaction does not imply some sort of tacit assent, and remarks about sharing the common detestation of such views, however well meant, do little or nothing to convince them to the contrary. The key to integration is a willingness to come together. The Race Relations Bill is a first step in this process, and the proposal to make it an offence to incite to hatred on grounds of colour, race, or ethnic or national origins is, I believe, an essential part of this first step.
The problem, as always in matters of this kind, is to frame a provision which will penalise indefensibly scurrilous and inflammatory speeches or publications, without curtailing legitimate freedom of comment and controversy. Although there have been no recent public disturbances on a substantial scale, we in the Home Office—I am sure it was also the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent—receive continuing complaints of anti-Semitic or anti-colour articles in Fascist news-sheets and flyposting of the "nigger neighbour" variety, and under the present law, unfortunately, highly offensive remarks can be disseminated and a scurrilous campaign mounted on a sufficient scale to produce a considerable effect, without falling foul of the law. A situation could arise where a determined man, with sufficient backing behind him, could exploit the present situation and

1011
do a great deal of harm. It is this potential bad case that Clause 6 is designed to deal with.
The clause achieves this by penalising deliberate incitement to racial hatred, oral or written. We are determined, however, that legitimate public debate and controversy should not be inhibited, and have therefore defined the new offence closely to ensure that it shall bite only on the race-mongers. It is designed to operate selectively against the leaders and organisers, and not be capable of becoming a weapon used against the ordinary man in the street engaged in ordinary conversation or discussion of the issues and events of the day.
The new offence in Clause 6 has three limbs. First, the matter or words complained of must be threatening, abusive or insulting. It is, in fact, hard to conceive of some or all of these criteria not being met in the sort of cases I have been describing, but reasonable discussion would not be affected. Secondly, the matter or words complained of must be likely to stir up hatred against a section of the public in Great Britain on grounds of colour, race, or ethnic or national origins. This will be a question of fact, which will turn on the circumstances of the particular case; but it must be shown that it is on one of the prohibited grounds. It is not necessary for there to be more than a likelihood of the stirring up of racial hatred. For example, a breach of the peace does not have to be shown or proved. The presumption will lie that the person concerned intended the natural consequences of his action, and the rule will apply that a person must take his audience as he finds it. Thirdly, there must be not only a likelihood but also the intention of stirring up hatred against a section of the public. This will make it clear that ordinary discussion, even if misinformed, will not be caught by the section, but only the person deliberately pursuing a course of conduct which in its way can cause as much harm to our fellow citizens and do as much damage to the fabric of society as the crime, say, of housebreaking.
A distinction is drawn between written matter and spoken words. Spoken words come within the clause only if they are spoken in a public place or at a public meeting. A man privately in his own
1012
house or at some other place may say what he pleases; but what he says in a public place or at a public meeting must be assumed to be intended to be published to the whole world and is dealt with on that basis. Written matter is also limited. Any method of publication or dissemination comes within the clause—it does not have to be done in a public place—and so the sly letter box campaign will be included; but publication of written matter strictly among members of an association does not provide cause for action. This is necessary if the affairs of clubs, businesses and even political Parties are not to be liable to unjustifiable interference.
It is especially important that any legislation prohibiting the expression of certain views, however undesirable or disreputable they may be, should not be misused for other ends. We must remember that the issues, which give rise to passionate feelings, and possibly even violence, in one generation, pass away and become almost forgotten by the next. The law, however, does not change so quickly, and it is important that the law made to deal with one situation should not be so drafted that it may be misused later on to deal with another. As an additional safeguard, therefore, Clause 6 requires that the Attorney General's consent must be obtained before proceedings may be instituted. This is an important safeguard against proceedings being taken in circumstances which would penalise or inhibit legitimate controversy, and will ensure that their use is confined to the ringleaders and organisers of incitement to racial hatred. This clause will serve to check effectively the emergent Fascist leader. The maximum penalties of two years' imprisonment and a fine of £1,000 upon conviction on indictment will enable the courts to hit this sort of person where it hurts—both in his person and in his pocket—without making a political martyr of him, and without infringing the liberties of ordinary men and women.
Clause 7 of the Bill re-enacts Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936 in extended form. This section provides that
"any person who in any public place or at any public meeting uses threatening. abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned shall be guilty of an offence".

1013
Section 5 of the 1936 Act is directed primarily to securing that public meetings and demonstrations in public places take place without breach of the peace. Freedom of public speech and demonstration is of little value unless this can be assured and, at the same time, those not taking part are entitled to expect that they shall not become occasions for brawls and disorder, in which members of the public may be injured. The purpose of the section is esssentially preventive—either to prevent disorder when a breach of the peace seems likely, or to limit and end disorder that has occurred. This can be effected only by immediate police action, for which Clause 6 is not designed to provide.
As Section 5 of the Public Order Act now stands, it does not state in clear terms to the man in the street that it covers such conduct as the dissemination of pamphlets and waving of banners at public meetings, or the sale of offensive literature in streets. The view has been expressed, and has much to commend it, that in law the word "behaviour" as it stands is sufficient to cover all these activities, and that accordingly no amendment of Section 5 of the 1936 Act is necessary. On balance, however, we have thought it right to take the opportunity to re-write Section 5 in extended form, so as to make its scope completely and unequivocally clear, particularly to those likely to be directly affected. The present penalties in Section 5 of the 1936 Act (which are, in fact, set out in the Public Order Act 1963) will continue to apply. Thus on summary conviction an offender will be liable to three months' imprisonment or a £100 fine, or both, and on conviction on indictment to twelve months' imprisonment or £500 fine, or both.
Taken together, the powers contained in Clauses 6 and 7 will enable the police to deal with the rabble-rousers in the street and with the backroom organisers who now are careful to keep on the right side of the present law. Without infringing our cherished liberties of speech and of the Press, these clauses will, I am sure, enable effective action to be taken to prevent the evil of incitement to racial hatred becoming established in our society, and will help to encourage the integration of coloured immigrants and the maintenance in
1014
modern conditions of our long tradition of tolerance.
My Lords, for two thousand years we have welcomed to these shores—and sometimes it has been a welcome too warm for comfort—the people of many races. They have broadened and enriched our economy and culture. They—and it applies literally to all of us—are an integral part of our democracy and the British way of life. In recent years we have welcomed perhaps a million Commonwealth citizens who are easily distinguishable by their colour. They have made an important contribution, and will make an even greater one. Their coming has created problems in our crowded island, problems which are being and will be solved by the good will and sense of our people, assisted by measures towards integration promoted by local and central Governments. This Bill will make its contribution towards that integration, and as such I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Stonham.)
3.33 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, in spite of the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, this Bill has a rather strange history. It has been through the other place, but it has never had a Second Reading. What happened in the other place was this. A Bill of the same name was introduced, and it depended almost entirely on the sanction of the criminal law; and the Opposition moved against it on the ground that it should be subject to civil law and that there should be conciliation machinery. The Government resisted this proposal. There was a Division, which the Government won, and the Bill was then sent to Committee.
On the first morning of the Committee, the Home Secretary announced that the night before he had put down Amendments making the Bill subject to civil law and setting up conciliation machinery, which is what the Opposition had asked for. Most of the members of the Committee, when they appeared in the Committee, had not even seen the Amendments, because there had not been time. Many Members of the other place wanted the Bill withdrawn and to have a new Bill, on the lines suggested by the Home

1015
Secretary, with a Second Reading. However, they did not succeed in this. So, as I say, this is the first time that this particular Bill has had a Second Reading.
I do not want to be depressing, but I do not know how much there is to be said for this Bill. I do not know what, if any, effect it will have. I suppose that it is an effort, and there is nothing very much to be said against it. It does not deal with any of the questions (because, as the Home Secretary said, it is almost impossible to deal with them through legislation) which cause most friction in integrating immigrant communities. It does not deal with housing; it does not deal with jobs; it does not deal with matters such as apprenticeships, and so on. What the Bill does, I think, is to express a pious hope that these conciliation committees will be able to help; and, indeed, they may.
There is this further point—and perhaps it is a good thing. Under this Bill I think it is unlikely that there will ever be any prosecutions. I find that the Home Secretary and the Solicitor General agreed with this view. And I gather that they would not argue against the thesis that it would be almost impossible for the prosecution to succeed.
LORD STONHAM: Perhaps I might interrupt the noble Lord. When he says it is unlikely that under this Bill there will be any prosecutions, I imagine that he is confining his remarks to the first Part of the Bill.
LORD DERWENT: The noble Lord is right. But in any case we hope that there will never be any prosecutions under the Bill, and that, if it has any validity, it will be possible to do something without bringing in the law.
I have said that there is very little to be said against the Bill. There are, however, two matters about which I feel rather strongly, and perhaps I may explain them in some detail, because I intend to put down Amendments on the Committee stage to deal with them. The first matter arises under Clause 5. It arises particularly with houses which are sub-divided: it does not, I think, apply to flats. What can happen under the clause is this. A landlord—and let us suppose that he is a good landlord—lets out his house in tenancies of one and two rooms, as is not uncommon in
1016
crowded areas. Two tenants may under the terms of their tenancies have to share a kitchen or lavatory, or both. As we all know, sharing a kitchen in the best circumstances is not too easy and, I understand, it apt to lead to friction.
In the sort of area to which I am referring the tenants who take one or two rooms are (shall I say?), on the whole, orthodox Hindu families: it does not matter what they are but let us take two orthodox Hindu families. Of course, when the people who are to share the kitchen take their tenancies they ask who is going to share the kitchen, and, if they are satisfied, they take the tenancy. But let us suppose that two Hindu families are doing this sharing and that one of them decides to leave and sub-lets to an English family. In such a case, what is going to happen in the kitchen? The orthodox Hindu has a form of cooking which, as a rule, is very highly spiced and scented and rather obnoxious to people who are not used to it. What will happen in the English family? Almost without doubt they will at some meals be going to eat beef; and I cannot see an orthodox Hindu sharing a kitchen with somebody cooking beef.
Under this Bill, if the landlord, who wants to run his house properly, and to avoid friction, says: "I am afraid that, as regards this second tenancy—the subletting—owing to the sharing of the kitchen, I cannot accept anyone but a Hindu family", he will be committing an offence. It may be a Pakistani, or any of a number of others, but if he sub-lets in this way then under this Bill he is committing an offence, because he has said: "I will not take anybody of any race other than a Hindu, due to the sharing of the kitchen." It does not apply to actual rooms in which they are living: I am talking of the kitchen and the lavatory. A landlord wants to act with the best possible motives, because he does not want friction in the house and he wants his tenants to be happy. But under the Bill he cannot say, "I cannot give a licence, except to a Hindu family, so long as tenant No. 1 is there." The same thing applies to lavatories. As many of your Lordships know, the use of lavatories in India differs from the way in which

1017
English people are accustomed to using them. In case your Lordships think I am exaggerating this, down in the docks, among the dock labour force, they have had to build lavatories for Hindus. The Indians regard our method of using lavatories as obnoxious, and we should think their method obnoxious, certainly if we had to share them. But they are both equally good for the respective people concerned.
This Bill is meant to be a Bill to avoid friction, and if the landlord has absolutely no option in those circumstances it must, in my view, be wrong. The Amendment I hope to put down on Committee stage is to take the sharing between tenants of either a kitchen or a lavatory out of this clause so that the landlord, not on the actual tenancy of the rooms, can say, "We will not have such-and-such a tenant, because he would have to share the kitchen or the lavatory with this other class of person". I think that must be right if we want to avoid friction. This is not a question of colour or race; it is a question of habits and customs. I think there should be something in the Bill to try to put this right.
The only other matter I want to mention is one which the noble Lord explained in detail to some extent, but rather glossed over. It is Clause 6(1). May I read it, taking paragraphs (a) and (b) separately:
"A person shall be guilty of an offence under this section if, with intent to stir up hatred against any section of the public in Great Britain distinguished by colour, race, or ethnic or national origins—

(a) he publishes or distributes written matter which is threatening abusive or insulting; or

being matter or words likely to stir up hatred …".
That is as regards publication of things pushed through letter-boxes, and so on. I said rather doubtful words about this Bill at the beginning, but I believe this subsection is the most important part of the Bill.
Paragraph (b) reads like this:
"A person shall be guilty of an offence under this section if, with intent to stir up hatred against any section of the public in Great Britain distinguished by colour, race, or ethnic or national origins …
(b) he uses in any public place or at any public meeting"—
1018
the important words are "any public place"—
"words which are threatening, abusive or insulting, being matter or words likely to stir up hatred against that section on grounds of colour, race"—
and so on. In my view, this goes much too wide and really interferes with free speech.
Let me take an example. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and I get into a taxi and I say "I will pay this". It is a long way and the fare is 10s. I fumble in the dark and tip the driver a penny, thinking it is a two-shilling piece. The driver, not referring to my race, or to my religion, says, "You bloody Jew", meaning that I have given him only a penny. Under this Bill he is committing an offence. If he did not mention the word "Jew" he would not be committing an offence, but in fact he is. I see why the Government want this put into the Bill, but why must we have this very wide power which might go very wrong, particularly when sometimes—if I may mention the East End of London—people are a bit outspoken? This is already adequately covered as regards words, but not publications, by the existing law.
I recommend your Lordships to turn to Clause 7, where it goes into Section 5 of the Public Order Act. There it says:
"Any person who in any public place …

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour …

with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned …"
Surely that is enough for an offence, and covers this other point. In my view, the clause, as it is drawn, goes much too wide. There may be a quarrel between a man with a fruit barrow and some Indian. They have an argument and the man calls the Indian a damned nigger—regrettable, I agree, and it is not something your Lordships would say; but it does happen. Under this Bill he will be committing a serious offence. If there is then a fight in the street, he doubtless would be caught under the Public Order Act. But those words would create an offence, and I submit it is going much too wide. On the Committee stage, I shall move an Amendment to delete Clause 6(1)(b). I hope your Lordships will support me on that, because I do not think one ought to

1019
have such vagueness in a new Statute. Apart from that, all I can say is I hope the Bill will have sonic good effect.

NEW ANGLO-MALDIVIAN AGREEMENT
3.46 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will read a Statement which has just been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. The Statement is as follows:
"I am glad to be able to inform the House that the negotiations with the Maldivian Government have been successfully concluded, and that a new Anglo-Maldivian Agreement was signed in Colombo this morning.
"By this Agreement, which confirms that the Maldive Islands are a fully independent State, Britain ceases to be responsible for the defence of the Maldive Islands and for the conduct of their political relations with other countries and with international organisations.
"The Agreement confirms Britain's unrestricted and exclusive use of those facilities in Addu Atoll which were accorded under the 1960 Agreement for the purposes of Commonwealth defence.
"I have arranged for copies of this new Agreement to be placed in the Library, and I shall in due course be presenting the text to Parliament for publication as a White Paper.
"I am confident that this satisfactory outcome of the negotiations will mark the beginning of a new and happy era in Anglo-Maldivian relations."
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for repeating this Statement. What is important about Anglo-Maldivian relations is what concerns Addu Atoll and Gan. I probably ought to know this, but may I ask the noble Lord for how long the agreement which we reached in 1960 operates for the use of Gan, and what arrangements there are for its re-negotiation if it is on a fixed term?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I am speaking without having checked as
1020
closely as I could, but I think the period covered by the present agreement continues until 1986.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am a little concerned with this situation because, as I understand it, the Gan, if it comes under this agreement, as I believe it does, and Addu Atoll are a very important part of our staging-post arrangements for military aircraft from this country to South-East Asia. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he is satisfied, and whether the Government are satisfied, if they no longer have the responsibility for the defence of the Maldives, that they can in fact ensure the defence of Gan and the Addu Atoll.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are so satisfied that they can defend Gan and Addu Atoll.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, if Britain is not going to defend these islands, may I ask who is?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, Britain never had these Islands. They were the property of, and belong to, the people of the Maldives and the Government of the Maldive Islands. They were in the relationship of a protected State.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, is this not being completely artificial? To think that the Maldive Islands could really defend themselves from a serious attack is just Gilbert and Sullivan. Is it not a fact that, if we are no longer responsible, and no longer have the right to defend them, then we cannot defend our important staging post?
LORD TAYLOR: Our duty will be to defend our staging post if need be, and if the consequence of that is that the Maldive Islands are defended, so much the better.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I say how much I welcome the success of these negotiations, which I am sure have been difficult, as they always have been, and if this is an example of the way in which the Maldivians conduct their relations with other countries I think they are more than capable of looking after their own interests. May I ask two questions? Are we going to have a representative, as we had on the previous agreement at Malé? Secondly, is there

1021
any agreement running concurrently with this whereby we continue to assist them, technically and financially, in the development of these remote but attractive islands?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord knows a great deal more about these islands than I do, since he played a great part in the earlier agreement. With regard to his first question, there is a clause in the annexure to the agreement under which the Maldivian Government agrees to receive a representative of the United Kingdom, if so requested, at Malé, but for the present both parties to the agreement are happy that the British representative should be Her Majesty's High Commissioner in Ceylon. With regard to the second part of the question, a considerable proportion of the £750,000 set aside for the economic aid scheme to the Maldives, I think largely owing to the initiative of the noble Lord in 1960, has yet to be committed, and until that has been committed fortunately no further question of aid need arise.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I seem to recollect that the previous discussions about this subject revealed that there had been some considerable trouble with regard to the ex-chief of Addu Atoll, who was, I think, named Nasir.
LORD TAYLOR: He is the present Prime Minister; it was Mr. Afif Didi.
LORD CARRINGTON: There is no bargain, I take it, to hand him over as a result of this agreement?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, Mr. Afif Didi is still, I think, in the Seychelles, and it is entirely a matter between Mr. Afif Didi and the Government of the Maldive Islands where he goes and what happens to him.

RACE RELATIONS BILL
3.54 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
LORD WADE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends on the Liberal Benches I support the Second Reading of this Race Relations Bill. I am aware that there are genuine doubts as to whether legislation can deal effectively with the stresses and strains that arise out
1022
of differences in race and colour, but I think legislation is called for. The question is not whether there should be legislation, but rather what form that legislation should take. As the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has pointed out, there have been major changes in this Bill since it was first introduced in another place. The emphasis is now on conciliation rather than on criminal prosecution, and in that respect I think the Bill has been improved. I welcome the fact that the Government have listened to the all-Party representations that were made to them on this subject. I do not think criminal prosecutions can ever be of much help in dealing with the causes of racial conflict.
I hope I may be forgiven if on the Second Reading I spend a little more time on the causes of these stresses and strains rather than on the contents of the Bill. One cannot very well discuss this Bill without turning for a few moments to our immigration policy, and I should like to make a few comments on that. It has been suggested in some quarters that this Bill can be approved because it is to be accompanied by a much stricter restriction on the entry of Commonwealth immigrants into this country. It has been suggested that the hard feelings that may be aroused by this stricter restriction can be offset by the introduction of this Bill. My Lords, I think that the subject is much more complex than that.
I admit at once that there is need for some control, but in my view the adoption of a quota is in some respects an admission of failure, and I am disturbed at some of the suggestions which have been put forward. Various figures have been bandied about as to the numbers which we could in the future accept, and I think the worst suggestion is that the Commonwealth immigrants should never exceed the numbers of those who leave this country at any one time. In my view the "one in, one out" policy is quite unrealistic from the point of view of our own economy. It does not take into account the need for teachers and doctors, not to mention those who help to run our transport system. But there is an even more serious objection than that. It would constitute a complete breach of the principle that when an immigrant comes to live here and finds an occupation and wishes to settle down

1023
lie should be allowed to bring his wife and children here to join him.
I can see only too clearly how this "one in, one out" policy would work. A man having settled here would apply for his wife and children to come and join him and he would be told that he could have only one: he would have to choose between his wife or one of the children. I am not suggesting that the Government are going to introduce that policy, but it has been mentioned, and it seems to me it would be inhuman, illiberal and very difficult to reconcile with the concept of membership of a multiracial Commonwealth. If we are going to avoid the discrimination and incitement referred to in this Bill, we must think of the feelings of those who come here and those who are denied coming here, as well as those who have, throughout their lifetime, lived in this country.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Wade, I would point out that there has never been any kind of suggestion that the Government would go back on this principle of a multiracial Commonwealth.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that. I would go further and say that I do not believe there is any numerical formula which by itself will solve this problem. Limitation there must be, but I think it should be dependent on our solving the problems of housing, health and education. Many of the fears and prejudices arise from the belief that there are not adequate health checks, from the knowledge of overcrowding in housing, and from the problems of the children's schooling, and there is much to be done in that field. I should like to see it clearly stated that we welcome immigrants from all parts of the Commonwealth and that entry is limited only by the need to safeguard health, to provide adequate housing and also to provide for the children to be educated, and ensuring that there are opportunities for employment. I think it is a tragedy that in this last ten years, while this problem of immigration has built up, so comparatively little has been done to provide for the people coming here to have adequate housing and to ensure that they are welcome.
1024
In a debate in your Lordships' House a little time ago my noble friend Lady Asquith of Yarnbury referred to the situation in Holland. I agree that the circumstances there are not quite the same as in this country, but I think the Dutch Government have shown greater readiness to anticipate the difficulties that arise from bringing in a large number of immigrants, and they have taken steps to avoid the problems that they foresaw. In this country there has been a mass of immigrants struggling along as best they could, and it is not surprising that in some parts of the country the situation has deteriorated. May be we are all, to a greater or lesser extent, to blame for not having foreseen sufficiently clearly the need for welcoming, these immigrants. If what I have said is true, I think it follows that the main solutions lie outside the scope of this Bill. Nevertheless I think the Bill is a worthwhile attempt, and I hope it will succeed. I hope the Race Relations Board which is to be set up, and the conciliation committees, will help towards the solution.
There was a great deal of discussion in another place on the procedure for dealing with discrimination, and certainly the new procedure is an improvement. But I think it must be realised that this will not replace the need for the bodies set up by local authorities and the good work of many individuals and many voluntary bodies who are trying to make the lives of immigrants in this country a little happier. But it will take much time and patience to allay the fears that are held by some of our own countrymen and also lessen the disillusionment of some immigrants who come here. I think that the subject of disillusionment was described very strikingly in an article by Jean Stead, in the Guardian on July 24, writing about a West Indian.
I am aware that one cannot generalise on this subject of integration and discrimination. For example, there are great differences between the Pakistanis and the West Indians. I know something of the problems of the Pakistanis in the West Riding of Yorkshire. I have been into their homes; I have talked with them, very often with the aid of an interpreter. Very often the homes are overcrowded. There ways of life are different. But I have got to know them and found them a very kind and friendly people. But they

1025
do not easily mix; they cannot easily be integrated. Some are here for only a few years, in order to earn enough to go back home and buy a piece of land. While they are here there are problems of language and differences of religion. I remember one representative of their community telling me that in Britain, if you wished to get to know people and become a good mixer and friendly, it seemed to be the normal thing to go to a public house. But their people were forbidden by religion to go to a public house and drink alcohol, and therefore that medium of getting friendly with others in this country was not open to them. I think we have to realise the differences in the way of life of the different immigrants, and much of the discussion that occurred in another place about public houses does not apply so far as the Pakistanis are concerned.
While speaking of them, I should like to refute the belief, that they, or any others who have come from other parts of the Commonwealth, have come here to take away the jobs of British workers, still less to live on unemployment pay. I have made a point of paying regular visits to the local employment exchange, and I am quite satisfied that there are very few who are receiving unemployment pay over any long period of time. They come here to work, and there is a need for them, the jobs are there for them. I think the more one examines the question, the clearer it is that there is very little ground for the fear that immigrants are taking away the jobs of British workers or coming here to live on unemployment pay. But the fear exists; although all the evidence is to the contrary, the fear is very real, and sometimes this leads to discrimination in the realms of employment. I am rather sorry this subject is not touched on in this Bill. I have examined the Bill and it does not appear to be. I agree that legislation cannot be expected to cover all contingencies, but why should nothing be done about discrimination in the realm of employment?
I should have thought that in that connection it would have been possible to adapt the procedure in Clauses 1 to 5, which was described by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and described in greater detail by the Home Secretary on the Report stage in another place. I
1026
should have thought that the procedure, of making a complaint, considering it and trying to conciliate, and ultimately referring it to the Race Relations Board, could have been adapted, except that in the last resort the matter would have to be referred, not to the Attorney General, but to the Minister of Labour or the Board of Trade. It seems unfortunate that nothing is done about discrimination in the realm of employment. The omission suggests that the Government is prepared to condone it, and I hope we shall have an assurance to-day that that is not so.
In conclusion, I welcome the clauses about incitement. I was interested in the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dement. I think that, generally, one can rely on the good sense of the police, and there are also the further additional safeguards that have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. But at least by this Bill we do show that we are striving to create a society in which every individual will be treated equally. regardless of his colour, race or religion.
4.7 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF COVENTRY: My Lords, while recognising, as I am sure we all must do, the potential dangers of this Bill as it affects liberty of speech and of writing, I nevertheless find myself very strongly in support of its main contentions, and I think more in support to-day than I should have been at its First Reading in another place, because the emphasis to-day is rather more on conciliation and rather less on legal sanctions. I am delighted that this Bill once again makes possible a debate in your Lordships' House on this all-important subject of racial integration. This Bill which we are discussing to-day seems to mark a definite and praiseworthy step in advance towards a happier handling of those who are our guests in this country; for that is what they are: our guests, for better or worse, for longer or shorter time. And in so far as law can create good relations, some of the Bill's provisions, such as those for the Race Relations Board and the local conciliation committees, seem to be timely and helpful.
But—and this is perhaps the main contention that I have to raise to-day—if these are to work happily, they are, as I

1027
am sure we all must realise, dependent upon a long-term, patient and widespread process of education which removes certain misconceptions, such as the misconception one often hears, that immigration of coloured people causes shortage of work, and that the coloured man is prospering at the expense of his host community. This, generally speaking, I believe, is not true. On the contrary, many coloured peoples are doing work not easily undertaken by British-born white people, and they have therefore contributed substantially to the general economic welfare of this country. Furthermore, I believe that we ought continually to express gratitude for the kindliness and courtesy of many coloured people in such services as the Underground, on the buses, notably in hospitals, and in many other spheres of work where coloured skins are often to be seen.
A second misconception which must, I think, be got rid of is that coloured people are more prone than white people to traffic in things like drugs and other vices. This belief is seriously open to question, and we should take the trouble, by production of facts and statistics, to destroy once and for all this cruel innuendo. Thirdly, there is the misconception that house occupancy by a coloured man brings down property values. Of course that does happen in certain cases, but it is not always the fault of the coloured man; for as soon as he arrives the white man tends to go, and so the neighbourhood becomes a coloured neighbourhood. In this respect there are faults on both sides. Such misconceptions ought to be removed, and they can disappear only as a result of education and of wise, sane unemotional facing of facts. To aid this, some very wise things are said, in Clause 6 of this Bill, relating to public order. Particular praise should be given to the setting up of local and national conciliation boards, and to the wise provision that prosecution under this Bill can be brought only by the Attorney General, for these provisions ensure that the facts are well established away from the emotional temper of a local situation. Equally important is the provision that requires evidence that the offender is likely to persist in his offence unless restrained by the order of a court of law.
1028
With regard to one small point in Clause 1, I am a little astonished that discrimination in places of public resort does not include taxis and charter 'planes; and I wonder whether "hotels" includes private hotels. I would hope that that point could be looked into on the Committee stage. Of course, we must not be foolish enough to imagine that man in his astute cleverness will not find ways and means of getting round the law in certain directions. For instance, while it may be reasonably easy to enforce the clause dealing with tenancy agreements, it will still be all too easy to set up restrictive practices of some other means or on some other basis. Differential rents may be one way; and one can envisage other ways of getting round the wise provisions of this clause.
That brings me back to my basic contention, that while we should be grateful for a tightening of the law with which to prevent, or deal with, the worsening of race relations, the law itself is inevitably limited in its effects. The long-term way to peaceful racial integration is through education, removal of prejudice, the setting-up of local conciliatory boards, the strengthening—and I underline this—of voluntary welfare agencies, such as the Citizens' Advice Bureaux (for whom no praise can be too high) and an increased number of those (dare I say it?) spiritually-minded people who go out of their way to welcome coloured immigrants, make them feel at home and try to resolve their problems, all in an atmosphere free from distaste and suspicion.
I believe wholeheartedly in the value of local voluntary committees, and to the work of such people in my own City of Coventry I should like to pay a warm tribute, as one could in most great cities in this country. Nevertheless, although the effort throughout the country is impressive, when added together it is still grievously insufficient in relation to the size of the problem. I need hardly add that one of the most hopeful fields of local activity is the school. But even here, although there is as yet little trace of racial prejudice among the under twelves—there is some—one cannot say exactly the same of the position among the over-twelves.
In short, while one must be grateful indeed for many of the provisions of this

1029
Bill, they are dependent upon a clear and vigorously pursued plan of public education on racial issues. Though here one enters upon a controversial field, albeit not so controversial as one might have imagined an hour ago, because one finds that now both political Parties are united in the conviction that we shall be greatly helped and encouraged by planned immigration. But I hope that overall responsibility in this connection will be given to one Department of State and not, as at present, fragmented among several Departments.
A clear national policy along these lines would do much to put an end to irrational fears that white people will lose their jobs, that house property will deteriorate and that we shall have a flood of mixed marriages. I would again remind your Lordships that this country should be perfectly capable of absorbing a carefully-planned, annual immigration of coloured people, and, as the result of wise education and a warm welcome, and a freedom from prejudice, of benefiting greatly by their advent, as we have benefited in the past by the coming of Norsemen, Danes and even Scots and Welsh. Nevertheless, I end by reiterating that the achievement—
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am a little surprised to hear the right reverend Prelate refer to the Welsh as immigrants. I always thought that we were here first.
THE LORD BISHOP OF COVENTRY: My Lords, for many hundreds of years the Welsh have been immigrants into England, and we have been immigrants into Wales. However, I would end by reminding the House that the achievement of the objects of this Bill depends greatly upon men like Mr. Maurice Foley, who has been asked to do a great work in co-ordinating and developing local groups, voluntary and statutory, thus developing a good and understanding spirit among trade unions and employers. It will depend more upon people like him than upon the vigilant enforcement of the sanctions embodied in this Bill, important and valuable though they are. I should like to end by expressing my warm approval of the provisions of this Bill.
4.16 p.m.
LORD SIMEY: My Lords, I recognise that this is a first attempt to deal with what is, in fact, one of the most intimidating, if not the most intimidating, of all social problems of to-day. It is urgent. It has to be dealt with as an urgent problem now, and will need to be dealt with with increasing energy as the years go by. We recognise that we in this country must take up a position in regard to race relations because the problem is upon us. It has created a situation into which we have drifted rather than have been steered into. We have endeavoured to muddle our way through it, but we cannot do so any longer.
We have come to recognise that the problem we have to deal with arises more from the emotional forces which are present in every man's mind—none of us is free from them—and these forces express themselves in terms of ignorance and prejudice. We have discovered that these forces are a great deal stronger than we should like them to be. We cannot take the situation for granted. We cannot, in the opinion of such social scientists as myself, hope that this situation will in some sense right itself. We now have to take an initiative in this matter and do something about it. The onus of responsibility, therefore, is now on us to seize this initiative and to hold it.
If we proceed merely to deal with situations as they arise by using the procedure of this Bill simply and solely, I am afraid the situation will deteriorate. On the other hand, we have at least taken a positive step so far as this Bill is concerned, and I hope that one step can lead to another. I am afraid that, as things are, we know that any activity of this kind will lead to opposition in Britain, and we must not blink that sorry fact. We must recognise that there is a great deal of prejudice—and, in my opinion, we must recognise that to our shame. But at the same time we must act. We must act, first of all, along the lines set down in this Bill. They seem to me to be excellent. As there is so much emotion in this situation, I think we would all agree that it is impossible for us to proceed any further by way of substantially strengthening the criminal law. We have to proceed by education, and

1031
in so far as the criminal law is concerned act only where cases arise which are shamefully difficult, shamefully antagonistic to our democratic way of life.
This brings me to the point of the right reverend Prelate, who tells us that we must have more education. Of course we must. I myself have no complaint with the way in which the educational system of this country is now proceeding in this matter. There are many schools in which we have conducted investigations in matters of race relations and which have been found to be entirely "clean" in this way. Racial prejudice is certainly not encouraged; it is positively dealt with by professional teachers. In regard to boys and girls at school there is virtually no problem. The problem arises when children leave school, go into employment, marry, rent or buy houses, have families, and so on.
How is this matter to be dealt with in the future? We may talk of education, but who is to be made responsible for educating our ignorant fellow-citizens? Would it be possible, for instance, for the Race Relations Board which is to be set up under this Bill at least to start by publishing an annual report? Let it investigate the cases which are of matters of concern. For instance, in my own city of Liverpool we have a large number of coloured people living among us and they have integrated with the community quite well. There is, for instance, absolutely no problem of crime, so I am informed by senior police officers; but, at the same time, they are not rising socially within the community as they ought to. They have been with us now for two generations and more, and there are a large number of locally-born, coloured fellow citizens who are concentrated in an area which is represented by my wife on the City Council. Many of them are our personal friends. Why is it that they have not managed to find themselves employment in keeping with the physical abilities and the mental characteristics which they possess? That is the sort of thing which needs to be investigated by the Race Relations Board. We know, for instance, that some employers are glad to give them employment. We know that other employers are reluctant to give them more senior
1032
posts such as they are entitled to hold. In this matter I feel that we must not allow ourselves to deal in platitudes; we must try to face the grave situation in which we are now placed as what it is.
I now ask your Lordships for permission to turn for a moment from the physical audience that I am now addressing to the unseen audience of which I am fully conscious, the audience composed of those with whom I worked and lived in the Caribbean for some years, citizens of Bermuda and other countries, and my fellow citizens in Liverpool. What would these persons have me say on an occasion like this? They would, I am afraid, be critical of the steps we have taken so far. It is one thing to look at legislation of this kind from the point of view of a knowledgeable English subject; it is another thing entirely to look at this legislation from the point of view of a citizen of an overseas territory. I am afraid they would be critical of the speed at which we are dealing with the problem. They would know full well that the problem needs to be dealt with urgently. They would also remind me that part of the problem is the moral depredation suffered by members of a so-called race which deems itself to be superior. They would also call my attention to the crying need for somebody, somehow—some agency perhaps—to come to the rescue of those people and tell them of the error of their ways.
They would remind me in the course of our conversations of what it means to be, shall I say, a Negro—a person who suffers frustration and whose life is led in terms of spiritual depriviations. They would ask that there should be a wider understanding of such things. It is not only a matter of the position of the Negro; it is a matter of what he feels about the life he is living, and the pain which he suffers in this regard is extremely keen in many respects. I have myself taught coloured students for many years, as well as worked among them. I know how keenly they feel when English people blandly assume from time to time that because these people are coloured they are inferior. We must be jolted out of this complacent frame of mind somehow or other by some agency such as is outlined in the Bill. I would therefore ask that these matters be dealt with constructively.

1033
I am not in any sense opposing the Bill; I am supporting it. I am asking, however, as a matter of policy that it should be made the first step towards measures which go further than the Bill itself does, measures which have some definite bearing on the fact that we in this country will, as the years go by, come to be a rapidly diminishing proportion of the world's population, and quite quickly so. We must recognise that, somehow or other, there must be some kind of world polity which creates one world. We must learn to play our parts in it, not in any sense of superiority, but as colleagues of the people involved in the administration of the institutions concerned. I therefore close by saying that I am extremely conscious of the deep significance and impact of the motto which the Government of Jamica has made its own. They say "Out of many, one people". That must be the kind of motto which must increasingly motivate us in this country in the years which lie immediately ahead.
4.28 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I suppose that nobody would deny the good intentions which lie behind this Bill, but what one might perhaps question is in what direction the good intentions are leading us, if indeed in any particular direction at all. If I may initially make one comment upon what the noble Lord, Lord Simey, had to say, it is this. He referred to the necessity for "educating our ignorant fellow citizens". I suggest that that is one of the misconceived attitudes on this question. Who are these ignorant felow citizens? Generally speaking, that phrase would comprise those who are in contact with the realities of the immigration situation in this country—the people who live in areas where the immigrants have congregated. Therefore they are in contact with realities which supersede all the beautiful ideas which one may have when sitting in a Chamber like this, or when sitting in a study evolving beautiful thought on humanity. The old remark is very true:
"The toad beneath the harrow knows
Exactly where each tooth-point goes;
The butterfly upon the road
Preaches contentment to that toad".
Those who preach this sort of thing about the racial question in this country are, I
1034
suggest, only too often the butterflies who know nothing whatever about it.
The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, in his remarks has made my speech even briefer than it will be by referring to the genesis of the Bill. I do not intend to go into any detail myself, because I propose to make a few Second Reading remarks about the principles behind the Bill and to leave details to a Committee stage if such a stage is reached.
I am unable to look upon the Bill with any enthusiasm, because I regard it as a legislative attempt to deal with problems which defy legislation. More than that, the real basic problems as the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, pointed out, are untouched by this Bill, and surely you cannot cure a sick patient by dealing only with the symptoms. I am well aware of the acute problems which have arisen in this country over the flood of immigrants, the bulk of whom, generally speaking, bring with them to an already overcrowded land—and here I would join issue with the right reverend Prelate; I suggest with due humility that there is not plenty of room in this country for many more immigrants—a lower standard of life, different social habits, different hygienic standards, different language, different traditions; in fact, a totally different way of life and outlook on life.
We have had all this before, during the past few years in debates wherein many of your Lordships, myself included, have expressed our views more than once. I do not propose to take up your Lordships' time by restating them in any great detail. My views have not changed, but for the purpose of this Second Reading debate it is, I think, necessary briefly to recapitulate the reasons why I deplore some of the sanctions of this Bill. By all means have the conciliation arrangements and, if need be, reference to civil courts, but surely the sanctions restricting freedom of speech do not properly belong in a race relations Bill at all. Law and order should be dealt with in a comprehensive Bill covering, where necessary, such circumstances as these. Anxious as I am—indeed, as we all are—to encourage interracial harmony, especially in one's own country, I feel that one cannot produce such harmony while leaving untouched the sources from which disharmony arises.

1035
We have already in this country, it is estimated, a million non-European immigrants, and hence the conciliation provisions are a desirable attempt to ameliorate the inevitable friction caused by their presence. It seems obvious that the entry of more immigrants of other races should be drastically controlled in the interests of social peace, certainly while the possibility of integration in any acceptable sense is still very much in doubt. I have the temerity to suggest that it is not at all unlikely that, in the end, we shall be driven to the conclusion that integration, in the sense in which the word is usually used in discussions of this subject, is absolutely impossible for the majority of these immigrants.
To my mind, it is no answer to say that we need their labour for the jobs that our own people dislike and in the same breath to deplore the idea of the growth of second-class citizens. What else are we breeding in this country, my Lords, by allowing people of certain standards who are only too numerous among the immigrants to come to do minor jobs? In the circumstances, how can you stop such a result? However much you may deplore the appearance of second-class citizens you will inevitably produce them by such arrangements. The distinction in reality is almost inevitable.
Equally, it would be unwise to emphasise the problems of housing and employment by creating a special, protected minority. Racial tension can only be exacerbated by the resentment, and the justifiable resentment, which such provocative selection naturally excites. Such resentment is not fundamentally racial prejudice at all; it is merely that the accident of colour marks out the newcomer and easily identifies him. Also, the resident population has great fears, and justifiable fears, for its own material interests. It looks askance at the excessive fertility of these immigrants, and it fears miscegenation. My Lords, you cannot successfully legislate against personal feelings and attitudes of mind which are based on factual experience. It is, indeed, questionable whether the immigrants themselves really want integration in the sense of giving up their own way of life for an alien one.
In the end, one has to rely on an educated public—an educated public
1036
opinion, shall I say—buttressed by the realities of the situation, and the question is: Are these people, or are they not, a nuisance and possibly something more than a nuisance? The imposition of sanctions will, as I have said already, merely provoke opposition, and the provisions curtailing freedom of speech appear to me to have dangerous implications. The freedom to say any unpalatable and unpopular thing is, and always has been, in this country one of the chief pillars of freedom. The question of dealing with law and order is not, I suggest, once more, one to be singled out specially for a race relations Bill. However much our ideas and ideals may change, basic human nature does not change perceptibly over the centuries, and human nature views with natural suspicion and apprehension, and always has done, the influx of strangers within its homeland.
To sum up, my Lords, I suggest that, apart from the conciliation provisions, this Bill is misconceived, and possibly dangerously likely to defeat the laudable object of its sponsors. As has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, the real problems of housing, employment, hygiene and social habits remain intractable problems in a crowded land where there are no large areas able to digest an influx of immigrants. Public opinion is suspicious and anxious, and you cannot eliminate prejudices based on realities by penal legislation. The only hope lies, I suggest, in the steady education of public opinion and, to back that, the amelioration of the conditions which adversely affect the local population of this country. If these immigrants cease to be a nuisance or an irritation to the people among whom they settle, and become an obvious and innocuous addition to the population, then there will be no need of such legislation as this. If that does not happen, then no amount of legislative dragooning will make people of this country accept them without protest, which may even end in violence.
In conclusion, if I may so end, there was a very popular song in a fairly recent American musical which was even more popular than the play itself, and that was, "You Can't Get a Man With a Gun". That principle lies behind some of my opposition to this sort of legislative attempt to deal forcibly with matters

1037
which do not admit of any such treatment. I suggest that if this Bill gets a Second Reading it will still require material alteration.
4.40 p.m.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, I shall confine myself to Clause 6, which in my view is the most dangerous and unnecessary part of this Bill. The rest of it, I think, will be largely a dead letter, in any case. I have been surprised that, up to now, nobody in the course of this debate, I think, has said anything about the present state of mind of those whom the Bill is likely most intimately to affect—and those are, of course, the dwellers in the back streets of the areas of mass immigration. Because I do not think that we ought to accept at their face value the reassuring statements by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that this Bill is directed against, and is going to affect, only Fascists. Almost every gagging Bill in history has originally been directed against only one class of person, and almost every gagging Bill in history has ended up by affecting a great many more than that original class. It is the present psychological climate among those whom this Bill is going most intimately to affect, as the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, has just reminded us, which makes the Bill so dangerous and so unnecessary, and it is to that aspect that I wish, just for a few minutes, to direct your Lordships' attention.
Like most of your Lordships, I do not live in close and constant proximity to an area of mass immigration, but for the last nine years I have at intervals been writing in the Press or making observations in your Lordships' House on various aspects of the manifold problems of immigration; and in the last year or two I have received many hundreds of letters—only one of them expressing a dissenting opinion—from members of the public in all income groups, all Parties and all areas of the country. I feel, therefore, that I have some knowledge of what is going on in the mind of a large section of the electorate—indeed, according to the evidence of the opinion polls, a majority, both within the electorate as a whole and within each of the three Parties.
Wherever there has been mass immigration there is widespread and deep
1038
seated resentment—not prejudice against the colour of the immigrants, but resentment against their overwhelming numbers, against their sudden arrival, and against the varied social evils to which, not the individual immigrant but the mass immigration itself inevitably gives rise. And yet, if ever a dweller in a back street wishes to voice his legitimate grievances against some distress or disorder in his neighbourhood, he knows already, only too well, that somebody, and very possibly somebody far removed from the back street and from contact with immigration, is likely to accuse him of racialism—a word nowadays used so loosely and emotionally that it begins to remind one of "that blessed word, 'Mesopotamia'."
My Lords, those who live in these back streets can be extremely caustic about advice on racial problems emanating from the Cotswolds or from Hampstead Garden Suburb, or even from Westminster, if the source is someone who is not living in close and constant contact with an area of mass immigration. As one of my correspondents wrote to me, "Let her come and integrate with us in Plaistow". These people feel that their legitimate grievances have been ignored by politicians, of all Parties, who have constantly hesitated to discuss them in public. At the General Election, there was something very like a general conspiracy of silence as to immigration. Mr. Gordon Walker, who had been defeated in one area of mass immigration, did not even mention immigration in his Election address when he set off to contest another; and, in that, he was typical of the politicians of all Parties, who treated immigration as something too embarrassing to mention during the, electoral campaign. After the Election, a Labour Member said that no sooner had he set eyes on his Conservative opponent than he realised that here was a decent fellow who could be relied on not to bring immigration into the Election campaign—much as he might have said, "Here is a man who will never talk obscenity or treason". After that, one can only ask: What in the name of Gladstone, Disraeli and Keir Hardie are democratic politics about if politicians are to be too timid to discuss the gravest problem of the century at a General Election?

1039
Already, without this Bill, the widespread fear of "that blessed word, 'Mesopotamia'", is actually inhibiting remedial action. The Medical Officer of Health for Lancashire, for example, has said that officials are refraining from taking action in respect of overcrowding among immigrants, of a kind which would not have been tolerated among whites, for fear of being accused of racial prejudice; and the author of The Times' articles, "The Dark Million", wrote:
"Some councils treat facts and figures about coloured people like naughty novels, to be passed surreptitiously from hand to hand and read under the municipal bedcloths. I know of one report which is considered to be so shocking that it is fit to be read only by senior officials; the council are not seeing it ".
I know perfectly well, of course, that Clause 6 is ostensibly directed only against those who speak with intent to stir up hatred, and that theoretically it should not in any way inhibit a free and frank discussion of the multifarious social evils which inevitably result from a mass immigration. What I am trying to make clear to your Lordships is that already, and without Clause 6, "that blessed word, 'Mesopotamia'" strikes such irrational terror into all and sundry that, for fear of it, public officials will evade their duty or conceal the facts—and, incidentally, for fear of it, the Conservative Party threw away the prospect of winning the last Election—and that, in this psychological climate, Clause 6 is bound to make much more formidable inroads into the rights of free speech than its framers either expect or intend.
I should like, if I may, to give one more, and very striking, example of the fatal ease in confusing genuine grievances with racial prejudice. In the course of a radio interview, after the sweeping Conservative gains in the recent borough elections, the Secretary of the Labour Party was asked by the interviewer whether he thought that race questions had in any way contributed to the defeat of his Party. At this, the Secretary seemed to shy like a startled horse, and he replied that as to that he had no evidence, for he could not imagine anyone admitting to having voted out of racial prejudice. He assumed instinctively that any votes influenced by racial issues had been cast out of racial prejudice, and not because the voter was genuinely
1040
dismayed by some disorder or discomfort which had developed in the town or street in which he lived.
Now let us suppose that Clause 6 has been passed and that some dweller in a back street gets up at the street corner and says, "This street we were once so proud of has become a slum. It is full of houses in which rooms are occupied, four and five deep, by immigrants. Sanitary regulations are being flagrantly violated, the rate of tuberculosis among the immigrants in our area is said to be anything up to thirty times that among the natives. And, as to integration, we know that these particular immigrants do not wish to be integrated; they prefer their own ancient customs and religions, and even their own language". All these would be plain statements of fact, which have been reported time and again in the Press. The speaker might be just as well aware as your Lordships and I that all these social evils are not the fault of the immigrants, as distinct from mass immigration in itself, and that if there are any villains in the story they are neither the immigrants nor their native hosts but the policies of laissez-faire of successive Governments which have permitted this mass immigration into this already-overcrowded island, since, as I have said for many years past, it is not the colour but the numbers of the immigrants which is the root of the trouble.
Now, supposing our imaginary speaker goes on to say that in his view no more immigrants should be admitted. Again, this is a perfectly legitimate expression of opinion. But let us suppose that in his excitement when referring to the immigrants, he uses some derogatory term of a kind which is current among his workmates. Is he to be charged with using insulting language likely to stir up hatred against an ethnic group? We can be told: "Of course, not. The police and the courts will discriminate. One cannot imagine the Attorney General prosecuting in such a case." But remember the history of other gag Bills. They always went beyond what was originally intended. And I should like to remind the House how extraordinarily sensitive the relationships are in this field, and how easily sensitiveness can lead to confusion. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham, speaking in your Lordships'

1041
Chamber a week or two ago, told of a coloured immigrant who had applied to the B.B.C. for a post as an announcer; he had a bad stammer, and was rejected, and he came out saying that he was a victim of colour prejudice. A Member of another place not long ago told how a responsible leader of the immigrants in his locality had complained to the Press that a local firm was separating the washing of the whites and the coloureds and was stamping the articles of clothing with a "W" and "C" respectively; whereas, in fact, as it was soon proved, the firm had been using not only "W" and "C" but all the other letters of the alphabet in the normal process of organising its laundry.
I was glad to see that in another place it was a Labour Member who stressed the point that I am now trying to make to your Lordships. He said
"Both sides of the House have some responsibility for the resentment felt by many of my constituents against coloured immigrants"—
He should have said "against coloured immigration".
"I am afraid that under this Bill this resentment will be mistaken for racial prejudice and that some action will be taken against it".
That is precisely the danger that I am seeking to emphasise to your Lordships now: the danger that this unnecessary clause will make disastrous and largely unintentional inroads upon the right of free speech so that we shall soon find ourselves presented with that situation so familiar in the dictatorships of the Left and of the Right in which a large element of the community are convinced that the Government are determined to make it dangerous for them to voice their legitimate grievances.
Surely, my Lords, what we ought to do is what we have done for centuries: to trust the kindly common sense of the British citizen, and no more rush into panic legislation because an insignificant minority on the lunatic periphery of the Right may sometimes preach racial hatred than we have rushed into panic legislation in the past because an insignificant minority on the lunatic periphery of the Left has preached class hatred. It is difficult not to see this Bill as a mere political gesture, primarily designed to placate that all-too-influential minority of Government supporters who would wish the flood-gates still to be open, who
1042
resent even the retention of the Act of 1962 and who will bitterly resent any further restrictions, if and when the Government propose them. But I never thought to live to see a threat to free speech from a Labour Government.
4.55 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, rarely have I risen to welcome a Bill on Second Reading more deeply than I do on this occasion. My noble friend Lord Stonham, in introducing the Bill, referred to the fact that I have tried over a number of years to secure legislation on this basis. The spokesmen from the Opposition Front Bench made some play with the fact that the Home Secretary had, after pressure, included a conciliation provision within the Bill, and suggested that that was largely due to the activities of the Opposition. I speak with particular appreciation to-day because I think it unlikely, despite the last two speakers that we have heard, that the Second Reading of this Bill will be opposed. But when the Opposition is claiming that it has secured some Amendment to this Bill, I think it should be reminded of the fact that for over ten years it has opposed in principle any legislation of this kind.
During those ten years I have introduced Bills against racial discrimination very similar to the Bill now before the House; and they have been persistently obstructed by a group of Conservative Members in the House of Commons. One might dismiss that as the obstruction of a minority; but in discussions which I have had with the leaders of the Conservative party, with Mr. Macleod and Mr. Selwyn Lloyd in particular, they have objected to legislation against racial discrimination on the grounds of principle. I can refer to that fact publicly because they have not only said that to me in discussion but have said it in the House of Commons. They have put forward the extraordinary argument that since our Statutes do not include any reference to race or colour, to have a measure which makes racial discrimination illegal is to give recognition to race or colour. They have also argued that legislation is of no value in this field and that it is entirely a matter of education—to this I will refer later. Therefore, facing the Opposition, they will

1043
understand how grateful I am that today, after ten years, the Opposition has retreated from that view and is not going to oppose on Second Reading the Bill that is now before the House.
My Lords, we have to face the fact that there is probably a greater feeling about race and colour in this country than in any other European country. I have often asked myself why that should be so. In part, it may be a sequence of the Imperial authority of this country, an assumption that we had the right to govern and administer peoples of other races and colours all over the earth. However, I do not think that can be the only reason. There have been empires of France, Spain, Italy and the Netherlands, yet one does not find among those people the same racial prejudice that is so often encountered in this country. I suppose that the real historical reason is the insular position of our islands.
I am going to discipline myself and not speak, except for a few sentences, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I would, however, just say this to the noble Lord, Lord Milverton. Of course it is true that all through the history of mankind a sense of strangeness has caused prejudice. It began between tribes. It went on to wider areas. It became intensified when there was difference of race, in the pigment of the skin or in the features of the face. But I suggest to the noble Lord that he is quite wrong when he says that because that prejudice has existed in the past, it must necessarily exist in the future. We are now living in a smaller world in which we are intermingling. I doubt whether there is a Member of this House who does not claim among his personal friends people of a different race or colour. There are students from Asian, African and Caribbean countries, thousands of them, at our universities; and there are thousands at the universities of Europe and of America. They are proving the possession of an equal ability with white students, and between the students there is no racial feeling at all.
In the United Nations we now have representatives of every race and every colour, and they are proving in their
1044
representation an equality of capacity, and a greater ability to understand the new and wider world in which we are living than some of the representatives of our own territories have shown in the past. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, that we are now living in a new world, and that in it all the forces of progress, every historical contribution to the future, must tend to break down racial differences and not seek to maintain them.
I welcome the fact that in this Bill there are provisions for conciliation, because the main purpose of every one of us must be to discourage discrimination and expand the sense of racial solidarity and friendship; and not merely to punish or penalise those guilty of discrimination. Experience in America and Canada shows how valuable this conciliation machinery can be in overcoming discrimination. I was in Canada last week and I spoke to those responsible for the quite extraordinary human rights code which is in practice in Ontario. The conciliation procedure adopted there has meant that in less than 2 per cent. of the cases reported to the Commission was it necessary subsequently to have recourse to the law. All of us will wish that every possible effort to bring about racial co-operation by understanding and conciliation will be taken to the furthest possible point before sanctions and penalities are imposed.
I listened with great interest to the speech of the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Coventry. Of course he was perfectly correct; this problem cannot be solved by legislation. It can be solved only by education, by experience and by an acceptance of the ethic which is supremely expressed in the Christian religion. Only then shall we be able to live in the brotherhood which recognises the sanctity of the human personality as above the colour of our skin or the race to which we belong. I suggest to the noble Lords that legislation can be an educational contribution if in their legislation nations adopt the principle of human equality. The very fact that they have done so will create a psychological climate among their people which will be responsive to that new conception.
I recognise at once that there must be limits to the scope of legislation. I suppose that the major sense of racial discrimination which those of a different

1045
race and colour have in this country, particularly students, is when they are declined lodgings in a private house because the landlady either objects herself to their presence in the house or says that other lodgers would object. I recognise that we have no right to ask a woman to take into her home anyone to whom she objects. To me that is a private sphere over which it would be wrong to legislate, and where one must depend upon education. But surely, my Lords, in all spheres of public resort, in all the spheres of normal social opportunities of life, education, employment, housing and the day-to-day provisions for enjoyment and security, we have the right to lay down that racial discrimination shall not be practised.
This weekend I attended a conference of the Campaign against Racial Discrimination. I was a little disappointed to hear their spokesmen express the view that this Bill is useless because it does not go far enough. As I shall indicate, I should myself have wished the Bill to go further, yet I do not take the view that it is useless. I take the view emphatically that it is of enormous value that we should lay down the principle of racial equality in our legislation. I hope that, having laid down this principle in a first Bill, we may be able, after a year, or maybe a few years, to review its operation, find where it is inadequate, find the mistakes that may be within it, and, having begun upon the course of declaring for human equality, expand that until we express it in the fullest way.
Nevertheless, I think that the spokesmen for the Campaign against Racial Discrimination are justified in saying that this Bill does not meet many instances of racial discrimination. I spoke just now of the normal social opportunities of life. I should put education first. I think that all of us should take pride in the fact that, in our schools under public authorities. both teachers and educational authorities seek to educate children together, whatever their race or whatever their colour. But I believe that we have to go a little further than that. We have to extend this principle to private schools. We have to ask that in no schools in this country shall racial discrimination be practised. I know of one public school, for example, which places a limit upon the number of Jews among its pupils. This is not only
1046
an issue of colour and race. Everyone is aware that anti-Semitism has been rife, and we must give some protection.
Incidentally, may I say to the Minister that I very much regret the proposal which is now being made under the Ministry of Education to limit to thirty the number of coloured children in a school? I appreciate the difficulties in teaching children who do not know English, and that special steps have to be taken; but to segregate children on the ground of race and colour and send them to different schools is surely an acceptance of the very principle of segregation against which this Bill is to operate.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, with regard to what the noble Lord has just said, I think that it is fair to say that my right honourable friend has not sent out any mandatory instructions on this point. He simply sent out advice, and whether or not local education authorities follow it will depend on local circumstances.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. I did not mean to misrepresent the facts. I am glad to know that a number of education authorities, including the London Education Authority, have rejected this suggestion.
The Campaign against Racial Discrimination also regrets the fact that there is no reference in the Bill to employment. A number of firms decline to accept coloured workers. The managers at the employment exchanges are put in a position of great difficulty. They do not want to discriminate. I think it is unfair that they should have to say to a worker who happens to be coloured that there is a vacancy at a certain firm, if they know very well that at that firm he will be refused a job because he is coloured. In my view, the Bill ought to relate to employment. It ought also to relate to promotion within industry. The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, referred to the possibility of second-class citizens being developed in this country. There is a great danger of that in the sphere of employment. If we take the woollen industry in Yorkshire, where the sons of English mill workers are declining to work at night time because of the heat, the noise and nightwork, that work is being done almost entirely by Pakistanis. We have to be careful that in industry

1047
we do not develop, on the basis of race and colour, a second-class citizenship. This is tremendously important at this moment, because now, for the first time, we are beginning to have the children of the immigrant population leaving school, and already, in certain towns, we are getting reports of the difficulties which they have in obtaining employment.
The third sphere which I regret the Bill does not cover is that of the original purchase of houses or leasing of houses through estate agents. I recognise that the Bill covers cases where a landlord has entered into a lease and the tenant subsequently wants to sub-let or pass on the lease, but it does not cover original purchases or leases. In the last year, I have heard of three cases of senior members of embassy staffs in London where the estate agent with the solicitor acting has agreed the sale of a house and then, when he discovered that the buyer was a coloured man, even though high on the staff in an embassy, has refused the house. Actually, in one case, a high officer of the United Nations was refused a house in similar circumstances. I regret that the Bill does not extend to that.
I also regret that the Bill does not cover insurance and credit facilities, which on occasion are refused to people because they are coloured. I regret that it even does not cover advertisements in local newspapers which say, "No coloured". I admit that there is some difficulty about this, because one does not want a coloured person to go to a house and then be informed that, because he is coloured, he cannot be admitted, but after careful consideration, I have come to the view that, from the point of view of public psychology, there is greater harm in having columns of notices in the newspapers week by week, particularly in the London suburbs, saying, "No coloureds wanted" than the effect of refusals to the individuals who knock on doors. My last regret is that clubs otherwise open to the public should be able to refuse a coloured person. I do not think we can apply this to private clubs of a special character or for a special purpose, but where a club is open to the general public I think that some action should be taken if it applies discrimination against coloured persons.
1048
I want to express one regret which goes beyond these factors of race—that is, that, unlike the Bills which I introduced, this Bill does not cover religious discrimination. There is a fear that discrimination may be practised—for example, against Jews—and may be justified on the ground of their religion rather than of their race. There is the possibility that this may be done against Moslems, who may be of Asian race. I especially regret that this Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland, because it is in Northern Ireland that religious discrimination is carried out in its most evil form. I do not think that there is any denying the overwhelming evidence, which has come to other Members of your Lordships' House, as well as myself, of local authorities, Protestant in character, which decline houses to those of the Catholic religion. It may be true that there are certain local authorities, Catholic in character, which refuse houses to Protestants. There is no doubt that religious discrimination is practised in the case of corporations and public bodies in Northern Ireland. My regret is that this Bill does not apply there.
I should like to say a word to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who emphasised particularly the dangers of the clauses against incitement of hatred. I paused a long time before introducing in my own Bill a clause of that character, because I believe so tremendously in freedoms of speech and freedoms of writing. I eventually did so—and the clause in this Bill largely follows what was then done—because I came to the view that, just as it is possible to take proceedings against an individual for libelling and slandering another individual, so it ought to be justifiable to take action against an individual for slander against a whole group of people and a whole race. I would draw the attention of the noble Lord to the fact that this clause has been carefully drafted so that, before anyone can be prosecuted under it, there must be proof of intent to stir up hatred. I doubt whether the instances he gave would come under the clause as it is now drafted.
My Lords, those are the principal things I want to say about this legislation, but let me conclude by saying this. I believe that the adoption of this Bill will be a great step forward towards what is,

1049
after all, a fundamental human principle of life: that when a child is born it is not the pigment of the skin which makes that child sacred; it is the life within. Whatever be the pigment of the skin of any human being, it is its personality to which we must seek to give every opportunity and which we must develop. Only when we recognise the equality of us all shall we really be a human society. This Bill is a milestone in the advance of our country towards that full humanity which, after all, must be the aim and ideal of all of us.
5.24 p.m.
LORD TWINING: My Lords, I am a little fearful at following the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, who for so long has been the champion of coloured people and a crusader against all forms of racial discrimination; but, despite his eloquence and deep sincerity, I am not, and never have been, entirely in agreement with his views. I, too, have spent a great part of my working life trying to establish good relations and to stamp out racial discrimination. To-day I am closely associated with several organisations which are working to the same end. I have always regarded the people I meet for their own worth, whatever their colour, be it white, black, brown or yellow. My approach has been one of human relations rather than of race relations. All my experience makes me feel that the real solution to the problem does not lie with legislation, but in the creation of a healthy public opinion.
It is about the contents of Clauses 1, 2 and 3 of this Bill that I have some doubts, though I recognise that conditions have somewhat changed during the last few years and some special situations have arisen. What, one may ask, is likely to be the effect of these clauses? What impact will they have on the problem? I have no doubt that at first, at least, they will be welcomed by the majority of coloured people in this country, who will regard the Bill as their charter. The Bill will also, no doubt, be well received in those countries of the Commonwealth from which our coloured immigrants and visitors are drawn. But unless the provisions of the Bill can be made effective, there will be disillusionment, and our sincerity will be called in question. Here the danger lies. I fear that the more effectively the provisions of this Bill are
1050
administered, the more will those of our people who are affected resent them; and this could lead to a worsening of race relations, and feelings could be exacerbated. We may expect that every device which can be thought up will be used to evade the provisions of these clauses, and the result could be the opposite of what is intended.
An important question is whether there has been a sufficiently close analytical survey of the problem. Recently, a limited survey was undertaken by the Institute of Race Relations, the results of which have been published under the title of Colour and the British Electorate. But I am unaware of any comprehensive survey having been sponsored officially. I feel that much could be done, and that more active and energetic steps could be taken to educate public opinion. It must be remembered, too, that the problem of race relations is a two-way traffic: it is not only that some of the citizens of this country are at fault, but that some of our visitors are far from blameless. A lot more could surely be done to educate them regarding the standards of conduct expected of them in this country. We should do well to see what steps have been taken in other countries to deal with the problem, often with greater success than here. I hope that efforts to educate public opinion will succeed, because I believe that if determined steps are taken in this direction the time should not be far distant when the necessity for such a measure as this should be as dead as the dodo.
5.28 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said that he did not think this Bill was going to achieve very much. I feel that it will achieve something, and that the something is rather a mistake. I should like first to take up one thing which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said. He spoke about religious discrimination, and he started of by referring to Jews and Moslems. I wonder whether the noble Lord is aware of the fact that throughout this country there are well-established synagogues, which are faithfully attended; that the same applies to Moslem mosques, the head of the organisation being at Working; and that practising Jews occupy some of the most distinguished posts in our country. I do not think it can be

1051
said that there is any kind of religious discrimination in this country when one sees this to be the case. And I am glad that there is not. This country has always enjoyed complete freedom to practise any form of religion.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: Not always.
LORD SOMERS: If you like to qualify that, I will say that Black Magic is illegal. But apart from that, I should think you can practise practically anything you like.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): I think that some noble Lords will raise their eyebrows a little, not at the assertion about the present day, but at the assertion that it has always been so.
LORD SOMERS: It certainly has not always been so—the noble Earl is quite right there. But for a good many years—I should say a good many centuries—
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I wonder whether I may interrupt? I think I must have stated myself without clarity. I was not suggesting that there was discrimination of religion. I was suggesting that there is discrimination against Jews and discrimination against Asians, and that that discrimination—that is, in employment and in many other ways—might be justified on the ground of their religion rather than on their race, if religion is not included in the Bill.
LORD SOMERS: I should think that unlikely, since any discrimination which may exist against Jews—I know it exists in places—is certainly not on account of their religion, because it is chiefly against those who are not practising Jews. In any case, I will leave that.
More nonsense has been talked over this subject of race relations than practically any other subject. Personally, I am all in favour of integration and a healthy race relationship, but I do not think legislation is the way to achieve it. I have no objection to the coloured man as such. The best specimens of them are extremely admirable people. I remember my noble friend Lord Elton, when we were discussing this question a short time ago, saying—I hope I am quoting him accurately—that when he saw a coloured
1052
person in the street his first impulse was to go over and say a kindly word to him. I feel the same. In London to-day you see so many of these coloured people walking about the street, sometimes looking rather lonely, that one feels one wants to help them; but I do not think legislation is the way to do it.
I should like to tell your Lordships of an experience I had three weeks ago when I attended Matins in the Temple Church. Just opposite me was an African, a very fine looking man. He was in the pews reserved for barristers. He was so fine looking that I could hardly take my eyes off him. His face had, as it were, almost something of a saint in it, and the curious thing is that when we came out I found my wife had had the same impression. A man like that would be accepted by everybody. But all the 1 million immigrants who come into this country from abroad are not necessarily like that.
I am as much opposed to the colour bar as I am to any other bar, but I think one has to see this subject in perspective. The colour bar must go, most certainly. But one must remember that it has to go in both directions. Just look at Africa today, where the white man's rights are being gradually taken away from him. He is being chased out of the land; he is being deprived of any rights to sit on the legislative council; he is being deprived of even the right to vote in some countries, I think, though I would not swear to it. Yet we look upon that with a sort of bland indifference—that is all right when the Africans do it, but when we do it in our own country it is the most heinous sin. That is not a balanced view. If one is going to remove the colour bar it has to be removed in both directions. Some would say, of course, that that attitude in Africa is due to many years of subservience under the white man, but that is entirely false. If it had not been for the white man, they would still be living in the jungle. They owe a great deal to the white man, and the best of them appreciate it.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt again, but could the noble Lord—I am really interested—name one African country where a white person who has residential qualifications is not allowed to vote, or is not allowed to become a member of the Legislature—one?
LORD SOMERS: I am afraid I cannot, because I have not enough knowledge. I am merely going on what I have read and what I have been told.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I really think the noble Lord should withdraw a remark which he cannot substantiate. The position of the white man in African countries is one of great importance and of some delicacy sometimes, and will not be improved by remarks of the character to which the noble Lord has seen fit to give utterance.
LORD SOMERS: Most certainly, as I cannot substantiate them, I am perfectly willing to withdraw them. I leave it to your Lordships to make your own decisions. Once the colour bar has been removed, however, there are plenty of other bars. You can have nasty specimens and rowdy hooligans of any race, be they coloured or white, and no proprietor of a place of entertainment wants to have such specimens within his premises. This, it seems to me, is just where the Bill fails. He can throw out a white man without any offence whatsover, if he considers that he is not suitable for his premises, but if he throws out a coloured man for exactly the same reasons he is liable under Clause 1 to be accused of racial discrimination. Under Clause 3, he is then obliged to go through a lengthy process of inquiry to find out whether or not he has offended in this way. My Lords, why should he have to do that? They are his own premises, and he is perfectly at liberty to throw out any offender of whatever colour. If it is legitimate to treat a white man in this way it should also be legitimate to treat a coloured man so, if one is going to abolish the colour bar in both directions.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, does not the noble Lord realise that this Bill would deal with the white person in exactly the same way as the coloured person? It is against discrimination on the ground of race, and it would apply to a white victim just as it would apply to a coloured victim.
LORD SOMERS: I quite agree in theory, but, on the other hand, who is to say whether he did it from racial discrimination or whether he did it simply because the man was making a nuisance of himself? If the coloured man claims
1054
that he did it on the grounds of racial discrimination, he can make things very difficult for the proprietor. Unfortunately, some of these coloured immigrants from abroad suffer from that painful disease known as a chip on the shoulder, and they are only too anxious to take offence on grounds of their colour where none is meant. I well remember a boy we used to have at Epsom College when I was teaching there. I believe he was the son of an African chief. As your Lordships know, boys all go through various patches of bad luck—they do not win a certain race, or they do not win a certain prize, and so on. The others took it in their stride, but his invariable complaint to his housemaster was, "This would not have happened if I had not been black." That was his opinion, but it was not true.
We all want equality of privilege, but we must also have equality of restriction and discipline. I remember well that when I lived in Kew some friends on the other side of the road had next door to them a house which had been bought by a large African family. I think there were about ten of them all told, and they used to have very noisy and lengthy parties which lasted into the small hours of the morning, and I remember our friends saying how they could look through the windows and see them lying out full length on the floor at about 2 o'clock in the morning. You may say that they are perfectly entitled to do that in their own house, but it is not pleasant to have to live next door to a family like that, and I take the opportunity to say this. If the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is really sincere, he will go and rent a house in one of the immigrant districts for just a fortnight, and he will live there and see what it is like. I think that a fortnight would be enough, and I should be interested to hear his comments when he got back.
If there ever was a Bill to enforce racial discrimination it is this, since it gives the coloured man all the rights, privileges and pre-eminences from which the white man is debarred. As I said before, I am very much in favour of integration but I agree with the right reverend Prelate that legislation is not the way to bring it about. Voluntary social services, I am sure, provide the way in which we shall eventually solve this problem.
5.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I should like to tell my noble friend Lord Somers that when I was in a black republic a few years ago I was in a bar where, believe it or not, a black man was arrested for racial prejudice against a white man, so I really do not think the noble Lord is quite correct in everything he has said. I shall certainly not oppose this Bill, the motives of which are excellent; I only hope that they can be carried out. But, of course, we have to remember that we are legislating for human prejudices, many of them caused by ignorance. We have had these prejudices for thousands of years. I remember that three years ago we had a Bill in this house, originated I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and introduced here by the noble Lord, Lord Walston. Of course, the case is not quite parallel, but I remember on that occasion saying it was rather like trying to introduce legislation to ensure that all men between the ages of 20 and 30 prefer blondes and all those between 30 and 40 prefer brunettes.
The great point about this Bill is that it sets a good example, and that is extremely important. The other good thing about it is that, owing to the machinery of the conciliation committees, it will probably help the different races in this country to understand one another. If the Bill had come to your Lordships' House as originally drafted, I should have voted against it, because I understand that racial discrimination was going to be made a criminal offence, which I think would have been very wrong. However, under the present proposals, one would have to be a very persistent offender ever to be taken to court, and in any case the action would be a civil one.
I should now like to mention two clauses over which I find some difficulty. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be able to help me. To take first Clause 1(2)(a), in the South-East of England, which I know best of all, in the hop-picking and fruit-picking time we have a great many gypsies who come to pick the fruit and help with the hops; and quite a few of the pubs have a sign up saying "No gypsies". I should like to know whether if a publican put up such a notice he would be infringing
1056
the law under this Bill. Are our gypsies a separate race? Can it be said that they are of a separate ethnic origin? The trouble, as I see it, is that there are the Romany gypsies who can be called a genuine race, but, on the other hand, there are a great many other gypsies who are really vagrants imitating gypsy ways. Do the latter come under the term "gypsy"? For instance, if a publican puts up a notice saying, "No tinkers", would he be infringing the law?
While talking about publicans, I would add that there is no doubt at all that this Bill is going to be onerous on publicans. I have often been in a public house, as perhaps the majority of your Lordships have been, although perhaps some have not, and I know that if one is in a bar on a Saturday night just before closing time there are perhaps a hundred or two hundred people present, with possibly a few wild Irishmen and perhaps two or three Jamaicans, all very excited, and possibly one or two Pakistanis. When the barman shouts "Time, Gentlemen!" there is always a rush for drinks and it could happen that, through no fault of the barman, perhaps a Jamaican would not get his last drink. He might then get excited and "cut up rough", and then if the barman told him to leave, or had him removed, the Jamaican might lay a complaint against him. Conversely, under this Bill, if the barman had a rowdy Jamaican—I am sorry to keep on mentioning Jamaicans, but it is only because I happen to have a quite extensive experience of Jamaica—to deal with he might be frightened to evict him for fear of having a complaint laid. In any event, it seems to me that this Bill will make it very hard for publicans. As it is, they have a tough job to maintain order.
My other point is with regard to hotel keepers. We are rather inclined to imagine in this Bill that it is only white people who show intolerance, who show racial discrimination. But consider, say, a Mohammedan hotel keeper in this country. Of course, he will presumably object to having Hindus in his hotel. But under this Bill he has to do so. We are rather legislating against religious customs here, and I should have thought it was an extremely difficult thing to do. There is no doubt, of course, that this does take a freedom from a hotel proprietor; it takes his freedom to choose

1057
his customers, whom he allows into his hotel. But perhaps by taking away that freedom we are bringing in a greater freedom, so maybe it is all right.
The other clause that I am extremely worried about, as was my noble friend Lord Derwent, is Clause 5, which refers to discriminatory restrictions on the disposal of tenancies. The point I should like to get the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to explain to me, as I am sure nobody else can, is when is a dwelling-house not a dwelling-house. For instance, is a dwelling-house a block of flats, because if a dwelling-house is not a block of flats I would prefer to have the word "dwelling-house" taken out of this Bill. To me a dwelling-house is a house built for private use; in other words, a private house. But the house has perhaps been divided into four or five flats; I think the correct description is "twilight houses". It is perfectly true that if you are going to share bathrooms and lavatories and kitchens you are going to have a great deal of trouble, if you are going to have different races with different habits sharing these amenities. I do really think it will probably make more racial hatred if you force people to share kitchens when they have completely different eating habits, as, of course, have the Hindu and the Mohammedan, or the Mohammedan and Christian. With some peoples you have only to have the shadow of a Christian fall on their food and it is unclean.
In this clause I cannot understand this—it appears to be rather hypocritical to me. Apparently a landlord or the person holding the lease is entitled to refuse to share with another tenant if he does not want to, but apparently a sub-tenant cannot refuse. Why is that? Surely you cannot make one law for the landlord and one law for the tenant regarding racial discrimination. I cannot understand that. But I can quite understand, if it is impossible to differentiate a dwelling-house from a block of flats, why we have to have dwelling-houses in. But it is surely within the scope of the law to differentiate between dwelling-houses and blocks of flats, so that dwelling-houses do not come under this Bill.
I should like to back up my noble friend Lord Derwent in his remarks on Clause 6, because I quite agree one can easily legislate regarding documents,
1058
written propaganda, of a racial nature; you can perfectly well legislate against that. But if you are going to legislate against the spoken word you are going to get very tied up, I think, and it is an imposition on freedom of speech. I should have thought that the existing law to maintain public order is quite sufficient in that respect. Having said that, I will just say that I hope that the Bill does some good. As I said, I am quite sure the conciliation committees are an excellent idea; and of course the Racial Relations Board will have to be very knowledgeable as to how they choose the local people to sit on these committees, because a great deal of the power for good of these conciliation committees will obviously rest on the type of person on them. Having said that, I should like to welcome the Bill; but I hope that if a dwelling-house can be separated from a block of flats it will be done on Committee stage, because I see great danger, having travelled extensively in different places, if different races share extremely personal amenities such as cooking facilities. I welcome the Bill, subject to these remarks.
5.58 p.m.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I am quite sure that the noble Viscount will not expect me to follow him, at this stage in the debate, on the many points he has raised. But I am quite sure your Lordships would desire me to say how we have appreciated his study of the Bill and the very interesting points he has brought out. I found some of them, particularly his reference to the gypsies, most entertaining. Again, at this stage, I do not want to weary your Lordships by delivering the impassioned speech that I expected I might deliver in view of my interest in the Second Reading of this Bill; but because I have had some associations with the West Indies and with its people who are in this country, perhaps I might be forgiven for occupying two or three minutes at the end of this debate.
I want to say, first of all, that I welcome the Bill pretty well along the same lines as my noble friend Lord Brockway and the right reverend Prelate do. These are matters which have occupied my mind for many, many years, and I am happy indeed to see that, after the great efforts that have been made in days gone by by my noble friends Lord Sorensen and Lord

1059
Brockway in another place, we have reached this stage of a Bill of this kind.
First of all I want to express my deep regret that there has ever been a need for this Bill. I do not believe that it is of any credit to our nation that we have even to think of legislation along these lines and, in effect, legislation along the lines which has had to be introduced in the United States as the days have gone by. With my noble friend Lord Simey I had always believed that the way to solve this problem was by education; but it is difficult to know how to apply education. I had hoped through the years that our people would see sense in this matter and would realise the importance of the subject of discrimination, and that they themselves would have made it impossible that we should even be thinking in these days in terms of legislation with regard to race relations. After all, the victims of race discrimination are, in the main, our Commonwealth brethren, or people who have joined us in days gone by, it may be as a result of persecution in their own country, or, on the other hand, people who are not strictly of our blood. The obvious question in that regard is what breed each of us in your Lordships' House can actually claim, when we remember the long history of blood mixing in the United Kingdom.
But the situation has to be faced. We failed to do what we wanted to do by education and understanding. Therefore at this stage I believe it is necessary that we should introduce legislation on the matter. It is because of the existing situation that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Derwent—he can take all the credit he likes for it—that conciliation is the way to deal with the problem. I do not care who takes the credit. This is the right way to do it, and anything in the way of prosecution must be only the last resort. Therefore we are approaching this matter in the right way at this time.
I believe that this is a good Bill; but I am with my noble friend Lord Brockway in the view that it is not sufficiently comprehensive. It may easily leave many loopholes for some of the people who indulge in discrimination. Briefly and quickly, I think of travel agencies and of private employment agencies—they come to mind at once—of shops,
1060
and maybe particularly hairdressing establishments. I am terribly worried because employment is not mentioned in the Bill. I believe that at some time or other it must be put into this kind of legislation, because any of us who knows anything about, and mixes freely with the immigrants, knows the great difficulties that they have to cope with in regard to employment in certain sections of industry.
We hear many cases of immigrants. particularly coloured immigrants, being refused insurance cover on all manner of things—their lives or their property. As a building society director, I sincerely hope that it does not apply to many building societies, but I know of cases where mortgages have been refused absolutely on the ground of colour. I think this is a deplorable situation. On the question of tenancies and leases, which comes later, I feel that the Bill leaves much to be desired. This is the last thing I want to talk about at this stage. I am wondering whether my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack can help me in my views on this matter. I feel that Clause 5, which deals with tenancies and leases, leaves much to be desired as at present drafted and that a great deal of doubt exists. For example, as I read the Bill and try to think about it, it would, in my view, be possible for a clause to be inserted in the deeds of property stating, "No Negroes", "No coloured people". I fear also that the Bill does not apply to freeholds. The freehold question does not seem to be sufficiently covered within the terms of the Bill. I hope that my noble and learned friend in a word or two may give me some assurance, or may express some view on the matter; otherwise I feel that I shall have seriously to consider putting down an Amendment on the Committee stage of the Bill.
I had intended to say a good deal about incitement, but I realise that your Lordships have had quite a debate on this subject. The other matter that I should really have loved to "go to town" on was what I can only call the reactionary speeches from three parts of your Lordships' House to-day. I restrain myself. I feel that my noble friend Lord Brockway has fully dealt with that reaction. I would conclude by saying that I sincerely hope that that spirit departed

1061
from our country many years ago. It may well be that one of the speeches, at least, would have been popular about 140 years ago; but to-day I believe that the British people do not think like that. I welcome the Bill as it stands, with enthusiasm.
6.7 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, in replying to this debate may I first apologise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Stonham, who has asked me to say that as he has to represent the Home Office at another function he is unable to stay for the conclusion of the interesting discussion that we have had. I am grateful for the general reception which this Bill has received, and, speaking about it as a whole, such criticisms as have been made seem to me to be about equally divided between those who think that it goes too far and those who think that it does not go far enough; and that perhaps should encourage the Government to feel that, on the whole, they are probably about right.
As your Lordships know, this Bill deals really with two different things: incitement to racial hatred and discrimination. If I may deal first with incitement to racial hatred, there has been relatively little criticism of Clauses 6 and 7. I am sure that we all regret that in this country it should ever have been necessary to legislate against intentional incitement to racial hatred. But in the circumstances in which we now live, the law would be defective if it did not provide against it.
The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, first of all expressed the view that there was little to be said against the Bill, and he seemed to be rather disappointed about that. Then he said that he thought there would be circumstances in which this clause would be misused, and, if I followed him rightly, there was a case of two people in a taxi and, when somebody was fumbling about for money, rather reluctantly, or as a joke, the other said, "You are a bloody Jew". In the first place, a taxi is not a public meeting or a public place, and so the clause would not apply at all. It is always possible to find some silly sort of example to take. But, in any event, in that case the other man did not mean to incite hatred against Jews, and nobody would have
1062
taken any proceedings. The clause applies only where two circumstances obtain: first, that the words are likely to incite racial hatred, and, secondly, that the person who is charged intended them to do so. If there is any doubt after all that, there is the safeguard that no prosecution can be undertaken without the consent of the Attorney General.
It is precisely because experience has shown that our existing laws are deficient that it is necessary to have a provision of this kind. At the moment this sort of law depends on two things. First of all, if you can bring it under the law of sedition, the stirring up of groups of Her Majesty's subjects to violence is an indictable offence. But that means a jury, and it is difficult to get juries to convict because they have to be satisfied that violence would take place. The other, although a lesser offence, is where one has to prove that it was likely to cause a breach of the peace. That also is not easy. Therefore, I would suggest that if, under our law, it is not unlawful deliberately to incite to racial hatred, it certainly, however regretfully, ought to be.
LORD DERWENT: May I interrupt the noble and learned Lord? Surely if the language used is sufficiently severe to come under that clause, it is likely to cause a breach of the peace. I should have thought that in almost every circumstance that would be so.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: A breach of the peace really means that actual violence takes place. This is not necessarily the effect of somebody's inciting to violence. Under our existing law you could spend a great deal of money placarding every place in a relatively small area saying "Niggers, go home", and it would be difficult under the existing law to prove that there was any offence; whereas under this Bill, if it were established that the acts were intended to cause racial hatred, and were likely to do so, that would be sufficient.
LORD DERWENT: I am sorry to interrupt again, but I want to try to get the point right, and it may save time at the next stage. If you placarded a place, that would come under subsection (1)(a), publishing the matter, would it not? That is where I find it difficult to see why it is necessary to have a new law.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In regard to words at public meetings, the same is true. There are things which I hope would not be allowed to be said under this Bill, but so long as it is necessary to prove that they are likely to lead to physical violence there is in practice difficulty at present in getting a conviction.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, did not exactly welcome the Bill. He thought that everywhere throughout history there was always resentment against immigrants. To some extent, of course, that may be so. I should not have thought that it was so in France.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but I did not intend to say that. Having just read my speech through in the Office of Hansard, I know I certainly did not say that. I did not say that all through history people had resented immigrants. I was once a professional historian.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry that I misunderstood the noble Lord, because I thought that my noble friend Lord Brockway spent some time in answering that argument.
LORD BROCKWAY: I was answering the noble Lord, Lord Milverton.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then the noble Lord, Lord Elton, thought that Clause 6 was an invasion of free speech. Of course, here one has to hold the balance between the desirability of protecting free speech (and I suppose that I have been known as a fanatic about free speech all my life) and ensuring that such limits as are required are placed on it. No doubt at the end of the day this is a matter of opinion. I was not sure whether the noble Lord was saying—here again I may have misunderstood him—that the Tories could win the next Election on racial prejudice but that this Bill might interfere with it, or words to that effect. But I may have misunderstood him.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, I am sorry; I must have made myself extremely obscure on this point. What I said was that, just as various people had been afraid to talk immigration during the Election, so the Tory Party itself had thrown away the chance of
1064
winning the Election simply because it did not talk about immigration, which would probably have won it those few extra seats which it needed, owing to the unpopularity of the Labour Party's opposition to the 1962 Act.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I can assure the noble Lord that if the Tories want to run the next Election on immigration, there is nothing in this Bill to stop them, provided that what they are saying is not said with the deliberate object of inciting to racial hatred.
The noble Lord, Lord Twining, said that there might be devices to evade this clause; but, with respect, in view of its terms I should not have thought that that was so. He finally said that the ultimate answer to this whole problem is really the education of public opinion. I am quite sure that we should all agree with that. Still on Clause 6, the noble Lord, Lord Somers, said that the Bill gave privileges to coloured people that white people had not got. Of course, it would be quite possible, under Clause 6 of the Bill, to have a prosecution of a black person for inciting to hatred against white people.
On the question of discrimination, the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said that there had been a Government change of mind. It is rather difficult to please some people. There arc occasions in which it is complained that the Government will not allow anything in a Bill to be changed and that they have not got sufficiently receptive minds to be able to take advantage of the good ideas which other people put forward. Then, if they do change their minds because of what they have heard, the complaint is that they have changed their minds. The noble Lord also complained that the Bill did not provide an answer to the housing shortage. It is quite true that it does not provide an answer to the housing shortage—or do anything about sending a satellite to the moon. But this is not, if I may say so without offence, the object of the Bill.
Then there was the case of the two Hindu tenants. I think that there is some misunderstanding about this. This Bill does not deal with housing. It is a matter of criticism among some of my noble friends that it does not deal with housing; but it does not, except only

1065
that where a landlord has granted a lease and somebody wants to assign it the landlord's consent is not to be refused simply because the proposed assignee is of a particular colour. The exclusion of dwelling-houses altogether would defeat the purpose of the Bill, because there is little evidence of discrimination in business premises. As I understand the suggestion, it was that the proviso should apply to cases where the accommodation is shared with another tenant just as much as where it is shared with the landlord. This is to misconceive the justification for the proviso. It is not intended to condone the sort of prejudice which would lead a person to object to sharing a kitchen with, for instance, a coloured person. It simply recognises the principle that a landlord is entitled to some choice as to whom he should accept into his own home and share his own accommodation with, however irrational or misguided his choice may be thought to be. This right cannot be held to extend to a tenant occupying under contract premises which are not his own. However, if and when the noble Lord puts down a clause we shall no doubt consider it carefully.
The noble Lord, Lord Milverton—who was courteous enough to tell me that he has to be elsewhere, and therefore perhaps I need not reply to what he said at length—had none of the enthusiasm for the Bill which was displayed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry. He asked, "Do immigrants really want to give up their own way of life for an alien one?" So far as West Indians, for example, are concerned, they look upon us as the mother country. Their language is English; they wear the same sort of clothes as we do, though they may not be so expensive; they eat the same sort of food as we eat. To-day I was talking to the High Commissioner for Trinidad—not at all about this Bill, but about a point affecting justice—and he was telling me that his No. 2 is a white man, that they went to school together, that they play games together, that they worship at the same church and that they belong to the same clubs. It is quite obvious to me that in Trinidad, where I have been myself, there is no colour bar of any kind at all. Even with marriage—West Indians, Chinese, and Africans—there is no sense of colour bar. When West Indians come here, they
1066
encounter their first experience of there being such a thing as a colour bar, because they have never experienced it before.
My noble friend Lord Brockway thought that the Bill ought to go further than it does in dealing with purchases of freeholds and insurance credit facilities, and in regard to its extension to Northern Ireland, and I can appreciate some thinking that it ought to go further. In relation to what my noble friend and other noble Lords have said, I think that the Bill is quite right not to deal with either housing or employment. Employment, for example, is a very difficult question which varies so much everywhere. It is by no means always the employer who is the difficulty; not infrequently it is the other employees. It depends on the particular place; it depends very often on the particular factory. A great deal is being done in this field by the Ministry of Labour and by the trade unions, and on the whole I think it is very much better left to them. Of course, in relation to employment, if later on when we have our local conciliation committees they appear to he a success in the fields in which they are to start, it may be that we shall find it useful to extend them to employment.
Until the appointment of our friend Mr. Foley, we have never dealt with the whole problem of integration nationally. If we are going to have local conciliation committees and a central board, then for the first time we shall have a central body which will have its ears all over the country. It will really know how the situation in one place compares with the situation in another place and why one particular conciliation committee appears to be more successful than another. It is not a bad English plan to start a thing off without trying to take on too much at first.
So far as Northern Ireland is concerned, we cannot, in accordance with our constitutional arrangements with Northern Ireland, include them in this Bill against their will. They have said that they do not wish to be included in it.
The noble Lord, Lord Somers, rightly said that the Bill will not integrate, and that it is impossible to stop colour feeling, but it may be possible by legislation of this kind to prevent it getting worse. Then the noble Lord was worried about

1067
the brewers. I do not think he need be worried about the brewers, or feel that they have anything to worry about. As it is at the moment, of course, anybody who thinks he has been discriminated against can object at the brewster sessions to renewal of a licence. If he were a coloured man, and was alleging discrimination against him, the first thing he would be asked would be: "Have you been to the conciliation committee?" I should think, if anything, that a licensee would be in a better position than he is now, and I am sure that nobody will find himself anywhere near a court unless there is a persistent course of conduct. Obviously, the conciliation committees will be as anxious as anyone to achieve their object and to effect conciliation.
Lastly, but by no means least, the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, spoke about gypsies. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary was asked in another place about the gypsies, and he gave a very cautious answer, saying that it would be a matter for the interpretation of the courts. I am perhaps being somewhat venturesome in saying that I should have thought that gypsies were probably an ethnic group, and that if some licensee put up a notice saying "No gypsies of any kind, however well-behaved and however respectable" there might be some difficulty.
So far as hotels are concerned, it has of course always been the law that what is called a public inn is under an obligation to take in everybody: they cannot choose. Therefore, so far as the Sikh owner of the hotel is concerned, either he is running a common inn—which you always know, because by Statute the licensee must put up a notice—or it is a private hotel. If it is the former, he is in the same position as he was in before; if it is the latter, the Bill will not apply to him. It has been held that a block of flats can be a dwelling-house, but this is not a Bill to force anybody to share a kitchen. My noble friend Lord Royle, as well as other noble Lords, wished that the Bill had applied to housing in general, but, as I have said, after careful consideration and for many reasons the Government thought that was not practicable. If the Bill, when it becomes an
1068
Act, does well and appears to work well, and if the local conciliation committees are successful, then no doubt an opportunity may arise when we should consider the desirability of extending it to the fields of housing and employment.
I am sorry that I have omitted to say anything about the interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wade. I am sure he will not mind my saying that it was primarily directed to the problem which is behind all this; to the whole question of both immigration and integration. If I may say so, I agree with almost all that he said, and if I have not replied to his speech it is because we had in March a long debate on immigration. I am sure that when we meet again we shall all want to discuss the very interesting White Paper which is rather tantalisingly coming out just after this Bill, instead of before it. I regret this very much, because I should have liked to discuss this Bill in relation to this policy. Unfortunately, the Mountbatten Commission reported only in the middle of June. The Government lost no time, but of course the Home Office have had to consider their views; the White Paper has bad to be written, and so on. But so far as this Bill is concerned, I am grateful to your Lordships for the consideration which you have given to it, and I hope I am right in supposing that as about half of your Lordships think that it goes too far, and the other half think that it does not go far enough, it is probably, in the usual English way, just about right.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

JUDGES' REMUNERATION BILL
Brought from the Commons: read 1a, and to be printed.
STATUTORY ORDERS (SPECIAL PROCEDURE) BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment agreed to.
FIREARMS BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL
6.30 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I am sorry to speak again so soon, but I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a small but important Bill, and I hope that your Lordships will give it a speedy Second Reading. I have inherited the Bill from my honourable friend, the Member for Goole, Mr. George Jeger, and it was supported in another place by honourable Members from all sides. In excuse for not going through all the eight clauses and two Schedules, I would say that the Bill received a Second Reading in another place without debate after a ten-minute speech in seeking the leave of the House to introduce it; in Committee there was one explanatory or draft Amendment; and the Report and the Third Reading of the Bill were obtained without any further debate at all.
I think your Lordships will find most of what I would want to say in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill as printed for your Lordships' House. Very briefly, the Bill is concerned with the complicated subject of the measurement of ships for tonnage. It continues legislation which is scattered through the? Merchant Shipping Acts from 1894 down to 1954, but the wording of those Acts seems to be rather archaic and it is felt that at this stage the law on the subject ought to be given a new look and brought up to date. The Bill confers powers on the Board of Trade to act by means of regulations, and sets the basis for agreements with the International Maritime Consultative Organisation concerning what are known as "shelter-deck" ships. I suppose that. after all, this is merely an extension of Plimsoll and all that, and continues the great work done in the past to ensure the safety of our seagoing men and the preservation of our ships.
I am sure that, in view of the Business with which your Lordships are still concerned to-day, I shall not be expected to make a long Second Reading speech, and I will content myself at this stage by asking your Lordships to support the Second Reading and principles of the Bill. I give an assurance that, if
1070
your Lordships desire it, I will try to deal, either at the end of this debate, which I hope is going to be a very short one, or at the later stages of the Bill, with any detailed points which are raised. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Royle.)
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, I want first to congratulate my noble friend Lord Royle on introducing this Private Member's Bill, which, of course, received Government support in another place. Like my noble friend, I do not propose to transgress what we are coming to know as the "Egremont rules". My speech, I trust, will be commendably short. Nevertheless, although this is an unopposed Bill, and not a very long one, it is of very great importance, and I think it would be quite wrong if we were to let it go through without explaining, in your Lordships' House, what the Government's position is.
The particular subject with which it deals—that is, the tonnage of ships, gross and net—has been traditionally a very complicated matter, and there are various systems of measurement of tonnage. We can take pride in the fact that our method of assessment of tonnage is pre-eminent in the world, but the time has come when these matters have to be regulated internationally. They are internationally governed by the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, which is part of the United Nations and is one of the few international organisations which has its headquarters here in London. In view of the need for standardisation in the measurement of ships, it is necessary that we bring ourselves into line with the international decisions of what is known as IMCO.
This Bill, as I say, went through all its stages in the other place without any opposition, and I do not think that any of your Lordships will find anything to disagree with in its contents. However, if any Member of your Lordships' House desires any elucidation, I shall be only too happy, with permission of the House, to offer any explanations.
LORD GREENWAY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Royle, or the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, for clarification of one point? What is the meaning

1071
of the words "artificial openings" in the Explanatory Memorandum?
LORD HOBSON: If the noble Lord will allow me to say so, we cannot hear him.
LORD GREENWAY: In the Explanatory Memorandum there is mention of "artificial openings". I should like to know if either the noble Lord, Lord Royle, or the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, could kindly tell me what is an "artificial opening" in a vessel—whether it means in the hull, a hatch, or what it means.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, the noble Lord knows a great deal more about this subject that I do—I confess that at once—but I gather that the main problem with regard to the changes now envisaged is that, on the upper decks, there are places used for storage which are not quite closed and not quite open, and that this state of affairs has been regarded as one of the serious deficiencies in the existing legislation. I hope the noble Lord will feel that that is an answer to his question—I think it is—but if this does not satisfy him then, at a later stage of the Bill, I will try to give him a more complete and better answer.
LORD GREENWAY: I was thinking about motor cars driving in through the hull, as they do up the St. Lawrence; or in the ships that take motor cars across the Channel. I was thinking of that idea, and not so much as up topsides; that is all. I gather it is nothing to do with that at all; but I thank the noble Lord very much for his answer.
LORD ROYLE: I do not think that is what was intended or thought of at all. If there is no other noble Lord who wants to speak on the Bill, I will exercise my right to speak a second time merely to thank my noble friend Lord Hobson for the Government's support in this matter. I tried to pay your Lordships the compliment of believing that you would have read the Bill. I am now assured you have, so I think we can proceed to Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RENT BILL
6.37 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
Clause 12 [Release from rent regulation]:
On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HASTINGS: In Clause 12 we are dealing with release from rent regulation, which is a very important matter. I am much intrigued by the words in subsection (1)(b), where the Minister has power to take out of regulation houses "of any class or description", in one case of a specified rateable value and in another case of no specified rateable value. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, could tell us just what the Minister has in mind under the words, "any class or description". I should like an example of what might be done under subsection (1)(b).
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (LORD MITCHISON): So far as I know, I have had no information of any particular class. Clearly, the words are wide, and I think they have to be. There has to be a special class or kind (if I may use that word, instead of "description"); and if in fact the Minister is satisfied that there are enough of them, I see no particular reason why they should be kept under rent regulation—and that, of course, is the purpose of the paragraph.
LORD HASTINGS: It seems that some houses of a certain rateable value might remain under regulation and other houses of the same rateable value might not.
LORD MITCHISON: Yes, provided that the excepted houses fell into a definite class or description. I can think of various instances where something of that sort might happen, as I am sure the noble Lord can. I should have thought it was wise to leave a loophole of this

1073
kind in the case of houses of that type, if I may use such an ambiguous word, where the Minister was satisfied that there were enough of them.
LORD MOLSON: I think this is a very important clause and, so far as noble Lords on this side are concerned, one of the most valuable in the Bill. It enables the Minister to take almost any category of house out of the Bill and, indeed, to reduce the rateable value to a level at which no houses will be included. Therefore, although the purpose of the redrafting was to meet the agitation by the noble Lord's honourable friends in another place, it is, I am glad to say, such as would enable a Conservative Minister to take housing out of regulation in complete areas. Mr. Crossman was quite frank about this when speaking on the Report stage on June 29 in another place when he said:
"Legally, an area could not be taken out, although de facto one could virtually remove an area by taking the houses out; that is, by reducing the rateable value limit to a low level. It is, therefore, a factual power and not a legal one."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 715 (No. 143), col. 462, June 29, 1965.]
When Mr. Boyd-Carpenter asked for more detail about this, and said that it appeared to him that what the Minister was saying was exactly what he, Mr. Boyd-Carpenter, had been saying before, Mr. Crossman replied:
"Legally one must put it in terms of housing. Factually, this means that one could reduce the rateable value to a certain level where de facto one wound up the administration in this connecton."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 715 (No. 143), col. 463, June 29, 1965.]
That I regard as being extremely frank. It means that the Government are looking ahead to the time when not only will they have brought control to an end but will also take (or may take, when they are satisfied that it is possible to do so) all the housing in an area out of the scope of regulation. This, I think, is a most important clause. I am glad that the Minister confirms that that is what the effect will be.
LORD MITCHISON: May I take the opportunity of saying that I am glad to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Molson, approves of this clause which is, and so far as I know has always been, an integral part of the whole machinery. It is men
1074
tioned in the Explanatory Memorandum at the beginning, which says that the Minister:
"also has a similar power stage by stage to release regulated tenancies from regulation."
That is a fair statement of the position. Of course, it illustrates the necessary confidence that one must place, not necessarily in a particular Minister, but in any Minister of Housing and Local Government, in a matter of this sort.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Second transmission on death]:
LORD HUGHES: Clause 13 was added to the Bill at a fairly late stage in another place, and the purpose of this Amendment is to repair an omission in another place. In order to comply with Scottish procedure it is necessary to add the words, "or, in Scotland, the sheriff" because in Scotland there is no such thing as a county court. So this is merely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 20, after ("court") insert ("or, in Scotland, the sheriff").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 13, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HASTINGS: As the noble Lord said, this provision was put in at a fairly late stage. It introduces into the Rent Acts a very important new principle, the second transmission on death. That is to say, not only the widow of a tenant who dies has the right to take a tenancy; but, in the future, the widow's family, perhaps a daughter or a son or a grandchild living with her, would be able to carry on the tenancy. I see that subsection (1) says that this provision
"shall apply on the death of the tenant under a statutory tenancy … by virtue of the Rent Acts …".
I want to be quite clear whether this refers only to an "existing controlled tenancy" (which are the words used in Clause 11) or whether we are here dealing also with regulated tenancies. Again, it is a confusion that arises out of the word "statutory" and out of the interpretation of "by virtue of the Rent Acts". Is that a reference to the old Rent Acts, or does it include this Act, in which case "statutory" will, in this

1075
sense, presumably refer to the tenant of a regulated tenancy. If it is referring to the old Rent Acts only, it will be referring to what is, in Clause 11, called "existing controlled tenancy" under the old rateable values of £40 or £30. I want to know whether this clause covers the whole field or only that more limited field.
LORD MITCHISON: I understand this clause to refer to statutory tenancies as defined for the whole Act at the end of Clause 44(1). That is the definition stating that it has the same meaning as in the 1954 Act or as in a corresponding Scottish Act. Since that Act was enacted before this Bill, it is difficult to see how a statutory tenancy (if one thinks about it under this Bill) could be the kind of statutory tenancy here referred to. It must be something that was in existence at the time the 1954 Act was passed. I am not clear where one finds "statutory tenancy" within the framework of regulations. Regulations, broadly speaking, do not deal with succession. They are rather a matter of the adjustment of rents.
LORD HASTINGS: I am interested in that explanation. I have, in fact, looked up this definition in the 1954 Act and it confirms what I believe to be the meaning of this clause: that this power of second succession rests only with tenants of the existing statutory tenancies under the old Acts and not of the new regulated tenancies. But I am not sure about that; because if you look back to Clause 1(4) you will see that paragraph (b) of that subsection refers to
"a statutory tenancy arising on the termination of such a tenancy"
under this Bill. Therefore, I was not sure in this case whether "statutory" refers to this Bill or to the previous Acts only. As the noble Lord seems to think it refers to the previous Acts, I hope that is the case. I think it should be so.
LORD MITCHISON: I will willingly check my own opinion. I find the language quite clear; but I will gladly check it and let the noble Lord know if there is any difficulty, in time for him to deal with the matter.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14:
Recovery of possession of owner-occupied houses
14.—(1) Where a person who has occupied a dwelling-house as his residence (in this section referred to as the owner-occupier) has let the dwelling-house on a regulated tenancy and the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) of this section are satisfied, then if—
(b) the court is satisfied that the dwelling-house is required as a residence for the owner-occupier or any member of his family who resided with the owner-occupier when he last occupied the dwelling-house as a residence;
the court shall make an order for the possession of the dwelling-house, whether or not it would have power to do so under section 3 of the Act of 1933, and section 5(2) of the Act of 1920 shall not apply in relation to the order.
6.50 p.m.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved, in subsection (1)(b), to omit all words after "family" down to the end of the paragraph. The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment to which we attach considerable importance, but I hope that I can move it briefly. Clause 14 deals with the recovery of possession of owner-occupied houses, and this clause was inserted in another place on Report stage because during earlier proceedings there, particularly during the Committee stage, there had been a great deal of discussion and concern about the position of a man who owned and occupied a house but had to go abroad to take up some appointment or other and leave his house for a period, but who had every intention eventually of coming back to reoccupy it.
Undoubtedly, this clause goes a considerable way to meet that situation and is therefore to be welcomed. It will help an owner-occupier who has to leave home for any reason for a short period, and lets his house but plans to return, and has warned the tenant accordingly—a very important provision. It seems to us, however, that, as drafted, the clause does not give sufficient protection to the interests of the man's family. I suggest that subsection (1)(b) is too restrictive. As drafted, the clause does not cover the man's widow unless she had been resident with him in the house before he left it. The man may not have been married at all when he last occupied the house. Alternatively, his wife may have resided

1077
with him then but she may have died; or they may have been divorced, and the man may have married again, and died, and the second wife, his widow, would not be covered under the clause.
As drafted, the clause does not cover the case of a son or daughter who might not have been born at the time of, or during, the original occupation. We must envisage that this clause will cover cases where people may have let a house for twenty years or more. It does not cover the case of a son or daughter of the owner-occupier who, for some reason, did not happen to be resident in the house during the qualifying period, and it does not cover the position of a widowed daughter-in-law who may well have several small children. Take the case of a son of the owner-occupier who went abroad to work and married while abroad and then died. His widow and the children may have nowhere to go. They come back to this country, but she would not be covered by this clause, and her father-in-law would not be able to claim possession of the house for her.
One does not wish to open the door too wide by amending the clause, or to make abuse possible, but it seems to me that there are in the clause two strong safeguards against abuse. The first is that in subsection (2)(a) there is a provision that advance warning must have been given by the owner-occupier to the tenant of his intention eventually to recover possession and, secondly, a court has to be satisfied that the house is required as a residence for a member of the family of the original owner-occupier. I am not particularly wedded to the words of the Amendment, and it may not be the best way to achieve the purpose which I have in mind, which is to safeguard the interests of the immediate family of an owner-occupier. It seems to us that this safeguard is essential on humanitarian grounds, and if the Government cannot accept the Amendment, I hope that they will accept the principle.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 11, leave out from ("family") to the end of line 13.—(Lord Newton.)
LORD MITCHISON: It depends on what you want to do in the clause. The side-note calls it
"Recovery of possession of owner-occupied houses".
1078
I think that is a fair summary of its general purpose. It is so drafted that when an owner-occupier goes abroad, if he gives the notice required by subsection (2)(a) and the condition in subsection (2)(b) is fulfilled, he can get his house back. That, I think, is a matter on which we can all agree. That has been extended to cover the case of other people who have occupied the house or, if you like to put it more accurately, lived with the owner-occupier when he last occupied it. Those people must be members of his family.
The object of this Amendment is to extend it to members of the family who did not reside with the owner-occupier when he last occupied the house. That seems to me an entirely different and much wider object. In the form in which the Amendment appears on the Order Paper, it would allow, in my case, other conditions being fulfilled, of my nineteen grandchildren putting in claims—and I cannot be the only person with nineteen grandchildren. In fact, it would cover a very much wider field than even that. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, recognised this. He suggested that one should treat this as if it were a narrower range—that is to say, the children, or widows, or something of that sort. I am quite prepared to treat it in that way, but it would still be open to the same objection. This is essentially a clause giving a special right, as of right, to recover possession of an owner-occupied house. How can anybody be said to recover possession when he has never lived in the house? It baffles me.
LORD NEWTON: If the real object of the clause is as narrow as the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison. has said, why are the family included in it at all? The Government have included the family, provided that they have resided with the owner-occupier. My argument is that that could cause injustice to widows.
LORD MITCHISON: The short answer to the question, "Why are they included?" is, "Because they lived there, because it was their home". That is the whole point. This is a clause about owner-occupied houses, and what is recovered is the possession of such a house. I imagine that in most cases possession would be recovered by the owner-occupier himself, he having given notice and fulfilled the conditions. That

1079
is extended to other members of his family who have lived with him, and the moral case for that seems fairly clear: it was probably their home. Now it is sought to bring in other people whose home it never was. It is not the recovery of a home: it may be the recovery of a piece of property; that is all. I can see that an argument could be brought forward, though I would not agree with it. for stretching it wider. But that goes far beyond the purpose of the Bill, which is to allow people who have this house as a home, and have gone away, to come back to it, after they have given previous notice.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I wonder whether the noble Lord has set out correctly the argument for extension to members of the family. What the clause seems to me to mean is that the owner-occupier himself should be entitled to come back, having given due notice, but any extension to the family is an extension through the owner-occupier, whose house it was before he went away and rented it for a certain period. The extension to the family covers cases where the owner-occupier does not come hack and one member of the family, who lived with him or possibly did not live with him but nevertheless regarded it as something to which he was entitled through the owner-occupier, claims possession.
The wording is derived, I think, from Section 12(1)(h) of the 1953 Act, whereby on the death of a statutory tenant the widow or other member of the family living with him at the time can continue as tenant. It is entirely different here. The only justification for allowing a widow or member of the family to live in the house is that at the time of the man's death they were living there. In this case, there is no justification whatever in logic for excluding a member of the family, while a man is abroad, from going back to the house, provided it is tied down to a narrow range and does not include the uncles and aunts and the great grandchildren. There must be something for the new wife, who married the owner-occupier while he was abroad. She is entitled to say that she has some claim through her husband, who may always have told her that when they retire they would go and live at his home. Now she is prevented from doing so by the terms
1080
of the Bill. I hope the noble Lord will look at this again.
LORD MITCHISON: This does not happen to come from the particular place the noble Lord thought it came from, but I do not think that that matters. There are few aspects of rent control about which the same thing could not be said—most of them, nevertheless, erroneous. Your Lordships will remember that it was Anatole France who said that error always had one advantage over truth: there were many errors and only one truth. Whether he was right or not is an arguable question.
Then it is said that this is not logical. It all depends on what you mean by logic, as Professor Joad used to say. All I can do is to point out what mischief is sought to be met by this clause. It is the case of someone who has a home, leaves it temporarily intending to return, and when he goes back gives notice that he will return. Then he is allowed to return. It may be said that logically this should not be extended to anyone else, but that would exclude the people who lived with him in the house and had their home there. I do not think that that is good sense. The whole thing depends on the conception of not depriving people of the home they own or one member of the family owns by reason of their temporary absence. It is founded on occupation as well as ownership by an individual. And we drop the principle of occupation if we let in members of the family who never lived there. That is the object of this Amendment, whether it is in the form in which it appears in the Marshalled List or in the form the noble Lord, Lord Newton, suggested at the end of his speech.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The whole point is that it would exclude members of the family who may have lived there for 15 years and happened to move out a very short time before the owner-occupier went abroad.
LORD MITCHISON: This Amendment does not deal with that case, and if the noble Viscount wants to put down an Amendment to say that a person must have occupied the house within three months of the departure of the owner-occupier or something like that, I will consider it on its merits, but I cannot go into any more hypothetical Amendments. The substantial point here is the

1081
recovery of possession of a house which was owner-occupied and there is not only the question of ownership but occupation. If I may venture to discourage the noble Viscount, I would point out that if he started drawing a line so many months before the owner went abroad he would cause a great many anomalies and a great deal of unfairness. The only way to deal with this matter is to deal with the state of affairs at the time the owner-occupier left the house for some reason or other. What is the real moral case for giving a special right of recovery of possession to someone whose only connection with the house (as this Amendment is drafted) is that, though he never lived there, he is related to the chap who did? It is not good sense.
LORD HASTINGS: I think that that is one of the most staggering replies I have ever heard from any member of any Government in the years I have spent in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord is attaching more importance to the house than to the people. The family is important only because it has lived in the house and not because it is the family of the man who lives there. Is it possible that the Government believe that the family is insignificant if it happens to grow up outside the confines of the house, and that no importance is attached to the right of ownership of the house by the husband and father of that family? I think that that argument is completely fallible. It surprises me very much. I cannot see that the argument put forward by the noble Lord has any logic or humanity about it at all.
LORD MITCHISON: Let me try to help the noble Lord. I am sorry he should have been so staggered, though he looks all right. The point is that here people are being given a special right to recover their home in certain circumstances.
LORD HASTINGS: A special right which arises only as a result of this Bill. It was a natural right before this.
LORD MITCHISON: I see nothing in the least extraordinary in distinguishing a man's home from a house in which he has some completely bogus proprietory interest. I say "complete bogus" because a member of the family is said to have a proprietary right of some sort through the original owner-occupier. I
1082
wish the noble Lord would tell me which of my nineteen grandchildren has a proprietary right in my house, and why. This extension of the rights of property in order to get tenants out of houses is, I think, a remarkable development, even in the Conservative Party. I cannot say that it staggers me: nothing surprises me about them; I am long past being surprised. But let us see what we are getting to.
LORD HASTINGS: May I make it quite clear to the noble Lord that we are not now talking about grandchildren, but we are talking about the immediate family, and we are limited in that respect. If the immediate family has no right to a house occupied by the father and husband, I do not know what we are coming to in this country.
LORD MITCHISON: I must apologise to the noble Lord. I thought he was speaking to the Amendment on the Marshalled List.
LORD HASTINGS: I cannot stand for this. The noble Lord is trying to make debating points. My noble friend Lord Newton made it plain, and so did my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, that we wish to limit it to the immediate family. The noble Lord cannot wriggle out of this on a debating point of that nature.
LORD MITCHISON: I am not trying to wriggle out of anything. What is the immediate family? Supposing there are nineteen children—and I have known of such cases. Which of them is supposed to have the proprietary right in a house in which none of them may have lived? I cannot understand what the noble Lord is talking about. He has given up trying to found his argument on the right of a man to come back to his home, which is really the right, with its limitations and in certain circumstances, in this clause. He now founds entirely on a proprietary right, and a proprietary right which is said to exist in, let us say, all the members of the family. I hesitate to say it, but that is really nonsense, and nothing on which to found at all.
LORD AIREDALE: Supposing there were a dispute between several of the children. none of whom had lived in the house, but all of whom wished to have possession of it under this clause, how would this dispute be resolved as between

1083
those children? It would seem to me to be a hopeless task.
LORD NEWTON: In one of his earlier interventions, the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, said that he could not understand what moral justification there was for extending the provisions of the clause in the way in which this Amendment does. I think the moral justification is this. If you have a house which has belonged to the owner-occupier, say, for most of his life, and to his father before him, the owner-occupier's widow, even though she may never have lived in that house with her husband, would, I think, regard it as her home. I cannot imagine any woman in those circumstances not so regarding it. It is for that reason that it seems to us, simply on humanitarian grounds, right that, provided, as the clause provides, proper notice has been given to the tenant by the occupier at the beginning of the letting, it is not unreasonable, but, on the contrary, is most desirable, that the nearest members of the family (not the nineteen grandchildren) should be able to occupy the house.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, does not seem to be prepared to meet us at all in this. I thought that he would. I did not expect him to say that this particular form of amending the clause was appropriate; I expect that it does open the door too wide. But I had hoped he would say that he would wish, if he could, to give some sort of protection to safeguard the interests of the immediate members of the occupier's family. However. I do not think we shall get further with this by continuing to debate it. I will not withdraw the Amendment, because the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, has not convinced me that I should. I hope that the Committee will support me (we shall have to see whether they do or not), and if they do, then it will be open to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, to put down an Amendment on the Report stage for the specific purpose of seeing that his nineteen grandchildren will not be covered by it.
LORD MITCHISON: I am sorry that the question asked by the noble Lord,
Lord Airedale, remained unanswered. It would be interesting to know what the answer is.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is going to arise under the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, has quoted the case of the man who lives in a house with nineteen children, and all the nineteeen children were living in the house at the time when he went abroad, and at the time when he created this tenancy, having given due notice that he wanted it back. Very well. But he dies when he is abroad, and all the nineteen children come back to this country and they each say that they would like the house. There is the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. It has got to be sorted out under this Bill, as it would have to be under the Amendment.
LORD MITCHISON: I do not see the provision for sorting it out in this clause as it would be amended by the noble Lord, Lord Newton. We are now getting another class. We are getting the case of somebody who has lived in the house for a very long time and has had a forbear living in the house, and who founds on that a proprietary right that I hoped your Lordships agreed a little time ago could not well be found in the majority of cases. Conservative Peers are fully entitled to divide the House on this, but let me tell them clearly what they are doing. They are extending a right which was intended to apply only to houses as pieces of property. They have invented a most remarkable doctrine, that all the immediate members of a family have a proprietary right of some sort—if they have no occupation right under this clause—in the house occupied by the owner-occupier. If they choose to found on what I might perhaps say I regard as absurdities of that kind, they must not expect me to try to help them at any later stage of the Bill.
7.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 18) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 49.

CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Bessborough, E.

Brocket, L.

Albemarle, E.

Brecon, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Atholl, D.

Bridgeman, V.

Carrington, L.

Clinton, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Monson, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hailes, L.

Newall, L.

Conesford, L.

Hastings, L.

Newton, L.

Coutanche, L.

Hawke, L.

Oakshott, L.

Derwent, L.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Redesdale, L.

Digby, L.

Ilford, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Dilhorne, V.

Kinnoull, E.

St. Helens, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Long, V.

Sandford, L.

Effingham, E.

Lothian, M.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

MacCorquodale of Newton, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Falkland, V.

Mancroft, L.

Thurlow, L.

Ferrers, E.

Margadale, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Forbes, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Ullswater, V.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Mills, V.

Wolverton, L.

Greenway, L.

Molson, L.

Woolton, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Haire of Whiteabbey, L.

St. Davids, V.

Airedale, L.

Henderson, L.

Samuel, V.

Arwyn, L.

Hughes, L.

Shackleton, L.

Attlee, E.

Latham, L.

Shannon, E.

Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Leatherland, L.

Shepherd, L.

Blyton, L.

Lindgren, L.

Simey, L.

Bowden, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead L.

Snow, L.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Longford, E. (L. Privy Seal)

Sorensen, L.

Brown, L.

Mitchison, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Burden, L

Morrison of Kenwood, L.

Strang, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Peddie, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Champion, L.

Plummer, B.

Taylor, L.

Chorley, L.

Rhodes, L.

Terrington, L.

Collison, L.

Royle, L.

Wade, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Rusholme, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Sainsbury, L.

Williamson, L.

Greenhill, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
7.27 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved to add to the clause:
"() Not more than three months before the date upon which recovery of possession of a dwelling-house from a tenant or an occupier thereof is obtainable in accordance with subsection (1)(b) of this section proceedings in the court may commence against the tenant or the occupier as the case may be in order to establish the future right to recover possession of the dwelling-house and the court may make an order for possession suspended until the due termination of the tenancy or of the right of occupation.
() The costs of proceedings under this section shall be borne by the applicant if the proceedings are undefended; if the proceedings are defended the order as to the payment of the costs thereof shall be in the discretion of the court."
The noble Lord said: I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, that in spite of his last remarks I shall do my best to help the Government through the other stages of the Bill. This Amendment is designed to be uncontroversial, although in view of his latest remarks I hardly expect the noble Lord to accept it. This, as the noble Lord
1086
has said, is a special case where we are dealing with the owner-occupier who has had to go abroad, probably on the service of his country, and wants to come back. With him he will bring his family. The tenant of his house will, of course, have to leave when the owner-occupier applies to the court for an order, if by any chance the tenant refuses to leave on the return of the owner-occupier. If the owner-occupier had written from abroad giving notice to the tenant of his intention to return on, say, May 1, and he turns up on that day, which is probably two or three months later, and the tenant is still there, an unhappy situation might arise: the owner-occupier might be left in the street with his family. He has to go to stay with somebody. He is lucky if he can do that, because, if not, he may have to go to live at a hotel or boarding house for the period during which he is applying to the court for a court order, which I gather, may take a month and perhaps longer.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord will forgive me. The average period between the issue of the plaint note and the actual hearing of the case

1087
in all courts has been seventeen days for those who apply for expedition.
LORD HASTINGS: I am glad to hear that it is not quite as bad as I thought it might have been. But, even so, seventeen days is a hardship and an expense. It seemed to us only reasonable, from the point of view of the owner-occupier and the tenant, that this sort of action could be taken in advance of the day on which it is apparently agreed that the owner-occupier should return. If that notice is given in advance, then the tenant himself is in a position to know how he stands and the owner-occupier can be quite sure of getting his house on the day he returns from abroad. At the time we said "not more than three months before", and it is really an insurance policy, or an assurance that the owner-occupier can walk into his house if he likes to take advantage of this procedure. The tenant still will not leave until the day agreed for the owner-occupier to come back, and if he wishes to take his form of assurance in advance he will naturally have to pay the costs of going to the court. It would be a great help to owner-occupiers to be able to take advantage of this clause. Therefore we hope the Government will agree to something of this nature. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 29, at end insert the said subsections.—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD MITCHISON: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment, but I recognise that to some extent at least it is a question of the balance of convenience. One must bear in mind that this kind of point has arisen under rent control cases before, and I do not think there is any special provision to enable an early determination to be made. No doubt the reason for that is that there are general considerations to be taken into account in any claim for possession under the Rent Acts, and those general considerations might well be different at the end of the three months from what they were at the beginning.
Off-hand I cannot recollect any case in this rent legislation in which this rather peculiar right has been given, and there are some obvious objections to it. The first is that I cannot think that in general it is right to try to determine legal rights
1088
three months, or whatever it may be, before they actually fall to be exercised. I think in principle that that is thoroughly bad. If there were a case of undue delay which was going to be a matter of hardship, one would see the point and try to do something to meet it; in fact something has been done. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, seemed a trifle surprised at the statement made by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. It had been made to me beforehand so perhaps I was not so surprised, and to the best of my recollection I think something of the sort was said in an earlier debate in this House, although I would not be certain. Undoubtedly it has been singularly successful. After all, seventeen days in the circumstances here set out does not seem to me to constitute great hardship, whereas, of course, tenants who are turned out may also meet great hardship.
I should look at this proposal with far more sympathy if there was any indication that hardship existed or was likely to arise. It is not only a question of the seventeen days to which the average delay has now been reduced; it is also a question of the number of people who really find expedition necessary. If they want special expedition in the county court in this type of case they have to ask for it, and I understand that out of 6,000 applicants only 35 asked for expedition. People are not slow to ask for it if they think they are really going to be inconvenienced, and many of those who did ask may well have asked as a precaution. But a proportion of that sort is very small and I do not think we should be justified in allowing rights which have not yet accrued to be determined in advance in this particular case when there is really no suggestion that to act otherwise would cause great mischief.
I am putting it as moderately as I can because I think this is a more reasonable proposition than some others, but I think the noble Lord ought to be satisfied with what has been done already to expedite the proceedings as a matter of practice, combined with the fact that o expedition has so rarely been asked for, and with the general principle that if it can possibly be avoided one ought not to determine rights beforehand which may change in some respect by the time they come to be exercised.
LORD MOLSON: From the tone of the Parliamentary Secretary's reply, I do not despair that he will give this matter a little further thought before the Report stage. I want briefly to put the kind of case that is likely to arise. It would be the case of a regiment that has gone overseas for a period of time; a number of the officers and men of that regiment might have bought houses during the time they were in this country waiting to go overseas. They have taken advantage of this clause in order to make sure that when they come back they will be able to move straight back into their houses. No doubt in a number of cases the tenant will act honourably and decently, but what is one to say of the case of a family which comes back from overseas in the confident expectation that the rights given to them under this clause will be honoured and that they will be able to move into their house again, but this is not so?
I am very much interested that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said that the average time taken is only seventeen days. That is extremely satisfactory and, if I may, I would congratulate him upon having speeded things up to that extent, but of course if the average is seventeen days then obviously a great many cases will take longer, just as some will take less time. Again, the cost and inconvenience to a man coming back from overseas with his family and finding that a tenant is deliberately disregarding the provisions of this clause can cause suffering and expense quite out of proportion. I fully accept the points which the noble Lord has raised against this clause, but I think there is a point of substance in this Amendment and I would ask the Government to look at it again between now and the Report stage in order to see whether there is not some other procedure which could be laid down. The noble Lord spoke about the inconvenience and suffering caused by lack of security to tenants. Is not the lack of security equally great in the case of somebody coming back from overseas, expecting to reoccupy his house but finding that the tenant has refused to move out?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As the noble Lord referred to me, I wonder whether he could tell us whether he has ever heard of such a case of hardship
1090
having happened? What is proposed here has always been the law in Scotland; the returning soldier has always had to go to the courts. I have inquired from the Service Departments in England and I have been unable to find any single case which has ever happened in reality. Would the noble Lord tell us if he has ever heard of such a case?
LORD MOLSON: I know of no case exactly parallel to this, but under the whole of the Rent Restriction Acts there are many cases of hardship where a landlord has tried to obtain possession of his house, and in a great many cases, after the matter has been weighed in the light of the comparative hardship caused, the landlord has been given possession, but he has been kept out for a considerable time. If he has a house which he is at present occupying, then the hardship is not as great as it would be in the case of a serviceman returning from over-Seas. There is no doubt at all that the whole rent restriction legislation causes hardship to landlords who seek to regain their houses, and in cases where the courts grant them possession again ex hypothesi there is a hardship, and I think in future we ought to try to avoid it, even if that kind of hardship has existed previously.
LORD HASTINGS: I seem to have induced the noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary to embark upon a discussion which I thought might be coming on a later clause, Clause 33, and I was hoping that my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne would perhaps intervene on that occasion. The noble Lord talked about the average of seventeen days, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, spoke about the small number of cases which had applied for an urgent procedure. I am aware there was a long discussion on this subject in another place and there were points put from the other side; for instance, that the Protection from Eviction Act had not been running very long and probably a great many people did not know about the possibilities of this extra special procedure. But I do not want to embark on that now. Nevertheless. I do not regard this as a matter of principle but as a matter of convenience, whereas the previous Amendment to us was a matter of principle, whatever the noble Lord opposite

1091
may think about it. However, he has been invited by my noble friend Lord Molson to think again. I am glad that the situation does not seem to arise, or has not hitherto arisen very often, if at all, and that the time of the procedure already in being seems to be greatly shorter than it used to be. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
7.42 p.m.
LORD ST. HELENS LORD ST. HELENS moved, after Clause 14, to insert the following new clause
Recovery of possession of dwelling-house for residence by owner or members of his family
".—(1) Where a person has purchased or become the owner of a dwelling-house with vacant possession and has let the dwelling-house on a regulated tenancy and the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) of this section are satisfied, then if—

(a) apart from the Rent Acts the landlord would be entitled to recover possession of the dwelling-house; and

(b) the court is satisfied that the dwelling-house is required as a residence for that person or any member of his family;

the court shall make an order for the possession of the dwelling-house, whether or not it would have power to do so under section 3 of the Act of 1933, and section 5(2) of the Act of 1920 shall not apply in relation to the order.
(2) The said conditions are—

(a) that not later than the commencement of the tenancy (or if the tenancy was created before the commencement of this Act, not later than six months after the commencement of this Act) the landlord has given notice in writing to the tenant that possession may be recovered under this section; and

(b) that the dwelling-house has not since the commencement of this Act been let by that person on a regulated tenancy with respect to which the condition mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection was not satisfied."

The noble Lord said: The substance of this clause was debated at considerable length in another place on the Report stage, and for that reason I shall be more brief than I otherwise should have been. The whole purpose of this new clause is to enable the owner of a dwelling place or his family to regain possession upon retirement. In another place the Minister, Mr. Crossman, expressed a great deal of sympathy with the clause. He said:
"I have a great deal of sympathy with the aims of this Clause, and if I could find a
1092
formula for dealing with this problem I would be almost as tempted to deal with it as I would be to deal with the problem of the agricultural cottage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 715 (No. 142), col. 334, June 29, 1965.]
Then he went on to say:
"one of his noble friends in another place may be able to draft a clause which makes sense."
I do not know whether this clause can claim to make sense or not, but at any rate I think it expresses very much what we want to do.
There was a long legal argument in another place on the meaning of the word "retirement". That word was later taken out from the original clause debated in another place. Your Lordships will notice at the beginning of this new clause it says—and this is one of the most emphatic conditions for repossession:
"Where a person has purchased or become the owner of a dwelling-house with vacant possession …"
I set great store on those words "with vacant possession", because there is no question of turning out a long-standing tenant. As the Bill now stands there is no provision whatever for a person to regain possession of his dwelling-house when he retires. That, I think, is a bad thing. It will have one of two effects. Either a person, when he comes near to retirement, will buy or become possessed of a dwelling-house and deliberately leave it vacant, because he wants to be certain of getting in when he retires; or, alternatively, somebody who has such a dwelling-place will suffer very great hardships, and potential buyers will be deterred on the whole from becoming owner-occupiers, which is very much against the public interest.
This clause will operate in two separate circumstances. The first is where both parties know the approximate date of retirement. I should have mentioned that a condition mentioned at the end of the clause is that notice must have been given in writing, so there can be no possible doubt as to the intention of the owner. In many professions nowadays, in the Civil Service and in many businesses, people retire on a regular scheme; they have a regular date of retirement. Provided the owner is in good health and stays his full term, both parties know when he is going to retire, and so they

1093
have ample time to make arrangements for the dispossession of the tenant. In that case I see no difficulty whatsoever. The other case in which the clause will operate is when the owner retires prematurely. It may be from redundancy, or it may be from sickness—these cases do occur. The owner retires and he wants to come home and get possession of his house. A person in that position, if he cannot gain repossession, is going to suffer immense and, as I think, quite unreasonable hardship. It may be that that person will stay on wherever he may be, in the house he is in; it may be a house belonging to his firm and urgently needed by the firm. Alternatively, he may not have the money to pay the rent, since he is not earning a full wage, and so he may become a quite unnecessary burden on the State—he may even have to apply for National Assistance to pay his rent.
In view of the controversy that took place earlier, I would mention that my interpretation of the word "family" for this clause is the family that the owner could reasonably be expected to look after, whether he dies or does not die. The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, mentioned nineteen children. If seventeen of those children were earning good money, were 21 and above, I should not expect them to become part of the family. But I would accept a widow with two small children, or children under 21; I would include them as family, and I consider them in this particular clause in exactly the same way as constituting family. I believe this to be an eminently sensible addition to the Bill, and I have great hopes of this clause, because, as I say, in another place the Minister expressed great sympathy. I hope that the Minister here will be able to accept it. I realise that the wording may not be satisfactory, but I very much hope the Minister will be able to say that if the clause is withdrawn now he will introduce a similar clause, with similar intent, at Report stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 14 insert the said new clause.—(Lord St. Helens.)
LORD WOLVERTON: I should like to support my noble friend. I think that this is a very important matter. In local government many men before their retirement, particularly police officers, while continuing to live in county council
1094
houses, buy their own house for their retirement, in the knowledge that they will need it in a few years' time, and then let it. If they could not get it back it would be a great inconvenience to them. Schoolmasters still living in houses provided by the county council also have to make provision for their retirement. I think this is a very necessary clause, and I hope that the Government will be able to accept it.
LORD HAWKE: I should like to support this Amendment, on similar grounds. There is one type of tied tenant in this country who is rather powerless, namely the clergyman. He retires and has to clear out immediately from his rectory. Knowing that, and if they can scratch up the necessary deposit and they see a small house come on to the market in the place to which they want to retire, many of them will buy a house a few months or a year before they intend to retire, in order to have somewhere to go at the moment they are turned out of their rectory. If this clause is passed, those people will let the houses on short term which is greatly to the benefit of the community. On the other hand, if they cannot get possession without going to the court, I think they will make some arrangement, either keeping the house empty or else installing some relation or friend, because no clergyman would like to go to a court in order to get possession of a house, even if it was to live in himself.
LORD DIGBY: Noble Lords opposite have recommended this Bill always on the ground of fairness, and I am sure that is the criteria by which they would wish it to be judged. Surely this is a fair clause. There is no question of someone who thinks he is going to live forever in this house being turned out. It has to be written into the agreement that, in the circumstances envisaged, the owner will want it back. I ask the Government to consider this as a matter of fairness and, for that reason, to agree to this Amendment.
7.52 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: It is perfectly true that my right honourable friend viewed with sincere sympathy a clause which was introduced in another place to give effect to the intention of this clause. He rejected it on the ground

1095
that it really did not do what it was intended to do, and he expressed the hope that somebody might be able to find a better clause here. I am being perfectly frank about this. We tried very hard indeed, and we tried on two lines. This clause has been put forward as a clause to deal with cases of retirement. We first of all considered the words "retirement" and "retired". There are serious difficulties about this, as I think we may infer from the fact that a clause intended to deal with cases of retirement—that is to say this clause—never uses the word.
May I explain to your Lordships shortly the kind of difficulty? One does not want, if one can avoid it, to have several kinds of retirement. Are we going to have retirement as defined for National Insurance? What about the cases which I am told exist among the members of the Bar, who, for tax reasons, retire quite frequently and resume again afterwards? There are other similar difficulties. When we tried to found a right on retirement we could not find a formula that would meet it; nor, I think, can those who put this clause forward, or they would have used the word, too. We then tried by a simple reference to age. The difficulty about this is that people retire at quite surprisingly different ages. Policemen retire young: judges, I think, stay on longer. One can think of any number of instances. There, again, there will arise questions of people doing similar things, where the age limit may differ even within the same employing firm, if it is a case of the employer coming into it, as he often does.
Having tried, and tried in all sincerity, we found we could not devise a clause that would meet the case of retirement. This clause is far wider than anything to do with retirement. It is so wide that I am afraid I cannot accept it, and I cannot offer to produce anything in its place, for the simple reason that I have tried and failed. I had hoped that noble Lords opposite might he able to think of something better. As it stands, this clause has remarkably little connection with retirement at all. Not only does it not mention it, but it does not say anything about age. It does not allow one to infer in any way, except from the speeches
1096
of those who are supporting it, that it is intended to deal with retirement.
I must invite your Lordships to see exactly what it does. You have, first of ail, to take the case of someone who has become an owner, by purchase or otherwise, of a dwelling-house with vacant possession, and who lets it on a regulated tenancy, having given notice before the tenancy that he will need repossession later. There is one slightly consoling thought about this type of case, namely, that one would expect—and here I go largely on the factual findings in the Milner Holland Report—that in the vast majority of cases an arrangement of that sort would be kept to. But if the notice is given and the tenant does not comply, then the court is bound to make an order for possession whether or not it had power to do so under the Rent Acts; and one has to bear in mind that, although there is not so sweeping a power under the Rent Act itself, there is a considerable right for a landlord who purchased before a certain date to get back possession for his own occupation. Therefore, this is not the case of a landlord who has no right whatever on the one hand being given powers under this clause. It is really a question of whether the protection already given by the Rent Acts should be extended in this case.
A substantial point, when one is considering extensions of this kind, is that underlying all orders for possession in Rent Act cases there must be the question of the balance of hardship and whether it is reasonable to make an order. One may criticise that. One may say that it is not perfect and things of that sort. It is, none the less, an important provision, and there is no provision of that kind in this clause. It confers on the landlord in this type of case an absolute right to get the house back.
To give your Lordships a case of what I think everyone would admit was abuse: suppose that the landlord buys a block of houses and requires, or says he requires, one of them for his residence, and various others for members of his family, no doubt living with him (I accept that it is not in the clause, but it could be put there), if that happens he is going to recover quite a number of houses. Let us think, again, of a large number of landlords who do

1097
this as a practice. It is said, "You are causing them insecurity if you do not allow them to do this". But you are also causing insecurity, and in some cases quite serious insecurity, to the tenants.
Therefore, I would say to the Committee, with respect, that the provision in the 1933 Act—it is paragraph (h) of the First Schedule—has been used for many years in connection with rent control, and I think it meets at any rate the vast majority of cases of hardship. Nobody would ever say that any provision about houses may not entail some hardship somewhere. It has been used for a long time, and it gives the landlord sufficient protection. It was rather significant that not one of the four speakers who urged the adoption of the new clause said anything about the existing provisions in the 1933 Act. I do not think they made out any case for regarding those provisions as insufficient. I have not heard any complaints about them. There has been a certain amount of litigation, but, on the whole, they work reasonably well. I should like to know why those who favour this new clause regard those provisions as insufficient and want this clause instead.
I would repeat that this new clause mentions neither retirement nor any question of age and is therefore bound to cover numbers of cases which have nothing whatever to do with retirement or age. I am afraid that it is too wide a clause, and although I view its object with sincere sympathy I really do not see any way of doing it. The new clause does it only by dealing with a whole number of other cases, and I would submit that that is not the right way of tackling the matter. I suggest to the House that we should be content to leave the landlord with his rights under paragraph (h) in the First Schedule of the 1933 Act.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Would the noble Lord just remind me on this point? He said that there were two remedies, the ordinary provision about hardship in the First Schedule to the 1933 Act and some special provision about someone who bought a house before a certain date. Am I right in thinking that that was a date fixed in time in about 1956 or 1955, or is it a mobile date which moves along as we progress through the years? If it is a date fixed in
1098
time it becomes of less and less use as the years go by, and if that is the case this may be something which we ought to look at. Perhaps it is something which should be changed by regulations from time to time, if it provides the sort of remedy the noble Lord thinks is necessary.
LORD MITCHISON: It is paragraph (h) in that First Schedule. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to look at it. It refers to purchase before a certain date. I think that the date is in 1956, as I said when referring to it.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I think there is a mixture here. The First Schedule is in the 1933 Act. The date which was fixed in 1956 must, I think, come in the Rent Act, 1957. I think there are two different provisions.
LORD MITCHISON: May we leave it for the moment? We are not really concerned with amending that at the moment; we are concerned with this Amendment. I think we can agree that the landlord already has a considerable measure of protection; I do not say any more than that. I agree that it is not so in all cases, but he has a considerable measure of protection under existing legislation. That is sufficient for what I have to say. I am afraid that this clause would give him too much; it would be open to abuse, and, if it met the case which it was intended to meet, it would meet a number of others, too, which are very much less deserving.
I think that is sufficient. I hope your Lordships will take it from me that I have faithfully carried out what I was expected to do by my right honourable friend: that is to say, to see whether we could devise something which could cover retirement and which was reasonably practicable—one has to add that kind of qualification. One could hardly legislate separately for whole groups of people as to what was or what was not their retirement. I am sure that those who drafted this Amendment met the same difficulties, or they would have put in the word "retirement". It was in reference to retirement that my right honourable friend expressed his sympathy, and where I used my best efforts in seeking for a clause. I cannot hold out any hope that I can do better. In this connection it is not merely a personal matter: one gets

1099
the assistance of the Department, which knows a great deal about these things. We all had the same end in view. We failed. This clause fails. It goes too far. I suggest that it ought not to be accepted, and the landlord should be left to his remedy under the 1933 Rent Act.
LORD NEWTON: The principal objections which the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, has to this new clause is that it goes too wide and is open to abuse. I listened carefully to what he said, and it appeared to me that the abuse he had in mind was that a landlord could buy a block of houses and then in due course go to the court and say that he wanted to recover possession in order to put a large family in. If the noble Lord says that that is possible, then I have no doubt it is. Would he have any objection to a clause on the lines of this clause which limited the right of the person to become the owner of a dwelling house, and to exercising that right in respect of one house, not a block?
LORD MITCHISON: I gave that as an instance. One can think of others. If I may put my root objection to the new clause, as I put it before, it is this. The Rent Acts provide certain cases in which a landlord can get possession. All those cases are subject to the general question of which will cause the greater hardship, to give him possession or refuse him possession. That is an essential feature in this kind of case. But that is ruled out by this clause because there can be any amount of hardship and he is still entitled to it as of right. I do not think a good way of doing it is by a clause drawn as widely as this. Therefore I am sorry to say that confining it to one landlord, one house, would lead me to considerations of how many landlords might exercise it and matters of that sort.
One has to balance against the possibility—I hope the rare possibility—of hardship to a landlord in a case of this sort and the equal possibility of hardship to a tenant. I do not want to go into the rights of it, and it may be said, "The tenant ought to get out, because he said he would". That is what the clause implies, but there still may be questions of hardship. In these
1100
rent and housing cases the business of the Legislature is constantly to interfere with bargains that have been made and to keep people where, by the strict law of contract (apart from this legislation) they ought not to be, for the reason that it might be a great hardship if, in the particular circumstances, they were kept to their bargaining. The sanctity of contract everybody will admit, but it is not an infallible guide, and in the nature of the case it is certainly no guide to the Rent Acts.
LORD NEWTON: I am afraid that I find it very hard to envisage real hardships arising to the tenant, who knows exactly what he is taking on under these conditions. The noble Lord says that there may be hardship, but I find that difficult to envisage in the circumstances. This is something we could go on debating all night. I do not know what my noble friend proposes to do about this. It may be a case where between now and the next stage of the Bill we can deal with it by putting down another Amendment. We attach great importance to trying to take care of the case of purchasing for retirement. If my noble friend is content to withdraw the Amendment tonight, we will have another shot later.
LORD MITCHISON: I tried very hard and I could not find another answer. I do not yet believe that I can find the answer. However, if I can help noble Lords opposite on the point by telling them the sort of difficulties we had in mind, perhaps more fully than one can in debate, I will do so. I will do my best to help. It does not follow that I shall accept the clause that they think right, or that they will accept my refusal to put down a clause. But I am perfectly willing to do anything I can to help, because I think this is a matter that we all approach sympathetically.
LORD ST. HELENS: I am naturally disappointed that the new clause has not been accepted, but I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, for his kindly approach to us in this particular instance. I had very great hopes that the clause would be accepted, because I read in The Times this morning that this is the birthday of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and I did not think he would want any uncharitable act to mar the day. But I quite understand that as it stands

1101
at the moment this clause is too widely drafted. I accept that my noble friend Lord Newton has said, and we will have another try on this point at Report stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 [Recovery of possession of dwelling-house held for occupation by minister of religion]:
On Question, Whether Clause 15 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HASTINGS: I should not like to let this clause, which I think is a new clause inserted in the Bill in another place, pass without some comment. It refers to ministers of religion and gives them certain rights which I believe they did not have before. I wonder whether the noble Lord could very briefly outline what this clause does. Apparently it refers to all ministers of religion. I think that they will not be entirely protected, because if the vicarage or the house in which the lay minister or missionary lives is wanted for his successor, then by application to the court he can be turned out. I suppose it is the same for all ministers of all religions in this country. I wonder whether the noble Lord could say how long this procedure is likely to take.
LORD MITCHISON: On the last point, I have no more information than the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave a short time ago. This clause is intended to apply to all ministers of religion, but it does not directly concern a number of ministers of the Church of England because, unless the Opposition succeeds in removing it, they are protected by a section in the Pluralities Act. However, I think it will affect Anglican curates if they have a residence which they occupy to perform the duties of their office. It certainly affects Nonconformist ministers, and presumably, also, the Roman Catholic Church. I think there has been general agreement—I would not say that it is quite universal, because am not sure—among the religious persuasions affected that this is what they require, and I have not received or heard any specific complaints. I am not quite sure that every persuasion or religion is actually covered. I hope that I have said enough to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord
1102
Hastings. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, was here a short time ago and, if he had not been driven away by the call of hunger or other business I think he would have spoken in support of this clause. It has certainly had wide general support.
Clause 15 agreed to.
8.15 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved, after Clause 15, to insert the following new clause:
Recovery of possession of dwelling-house held for occupation by a person employed in agriculture.
".—(1) The following provisions of this section shall apply where a dwelling-house which was at any time occupied by a person under the terms of his employment as a person employed in agriculture has been let on a regulated tenancy to a person other than—

(a) a person who is or at any time was so employed by the landlord; or

(b) the widow of any such person as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection.

(2) If—

(a) not later than the commencement of the tenancy (or, if tenancy was created before the commencement of this Act, not later than six months after the commencement of this Act) the tenant has been given notice in writing that possession may be recovered under this section; and

(b) apart from the Rent Acts the landlord would be entitled to recover possession of the dwelling-house; and

(c) the court is satisfied that the dwelling-house is required for occupation by a person employed or to be employed by the landlord in agriculture;

the court shall make an order for the possession of the dwelling-house, whether or not it would have power to do so under section 3 of the Act of 1933, and section 5(2) of the Act of 1920 shall not apply in relation to the order.
(3) In this section 'employed', 'employment' and 'agriculture' have the same meanings as in the Agricultural Wages Act 1948 or, in Scotland, the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949."
The noble Lord said: This new clause gives effect to an undertaking which was given in another place, and by me on the Second Reading of this Bill here. On this matter the National Farmers' Union made representations to the Minister, and these were followed by discussion on Report in the other place, on the position that obtains when a farmer owns a cottage which has come into his possession as a result of one of

1103
his workers leaving his employment. He is not able immediately to replace that agricultural worker by another employee, but hopes eventually to be able to do so, and in the meantime the house remains idle. An empty house deteriorates fairly rapidly, there is the fact that the farmer loses revenue from his property, and, in addition, there is a waste of accommodation. The new clause is therefore designed to overcome this difficulty.
It applies where the cottage was previously occupied by an agricultural worker under the terms of his employment with the landlord, and it enables the landlord, where he lets the cottage temporarily on a regulated tenancy as defined in Clause 1(4) of the Bill to some other person, to regain possession if he subsequently needs it for occupation by an agricultural worker employed, or subsequently to be employed, by him. As regulated tenancies, the provisions relating to fixing of rents will apply to tenancies covered by this clause. Under subsection (1), the clause applies where occupation is by a person employed in agriculture under the terms of his employment, and where it has been let on a regulated tenancy to a person other than an agricultural worker employed, or previously employed, by the landlord, or the widow of any such worker. By this subsection we have met the reservations expressed by my noble friend Lord Hilton of Upton on Second Reading. The clause does not apply where, at the date when the landlord seeks possession, the cottage is let to a person who is or was at any time in the employment of the landlord.
Subsection (2) sets out the circumstances in which the county court is obliged to grant an order for possession. These are clear, I think, from a reading of the subsection and I need not elaborate. But perhaps I ought to mention that Section 3 of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act, 1933, sets out the limited grounds on which a county court may grant possession to the landlord of a dwelling-house subject to a tenancy to which the Rent Acts apply. The other county court power mentioned in this subsection, under Section 5(2) of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, to adjourn an application for possession or postpone the date of possession in respect of dwellings
1104
controlled under the Rent Acts, is removed in the case of orders for possession granted under this new clause. Perhaps I should add that the court will retain their inherent jurisdiction to give the tenant a period of grace (not normally exceeding four to six weeks), and it would be for the court to decide in a particular case how soon the former tenant should be required to leave.
The definitions in subsection (3) are, I think, reasonably clear. They are in the Acts which are referred to. I shall read them to the Committee if any Member feels that he would like to hear them, but that would take quite a long time and I imagine it would not be particularly desired by the Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 15, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Champion.)
LORD HASTINGS: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, for bringing forward this new clause. As he said, I asked him about it on Second Reading, and he gave an undertaking that this would be done. We had, however, drafted an Amendment of our own, but it had not gone to Press by the time the Government Amendment appeared. Our Amendment was almost exactly the same. It did, in fact, protect the agricultural employee of the landlord, who is covered by subsection (1)(a), but we had not included the widow. I can see the reason for including her. So, in general, I welcome this clause, although there are one or two points of some interest which I should like to clear up.
As things stand, of course, if a landlord (whether he is the superior landlord or the farmer) who has the right of occupation of an agricultural cottage has employed a man for a considerable period of time, and that man retires, he will generally try to help him. If he has a spare cottage, he will let him have it; or if that man dies, he will try to help the widow by letting her have a spare cottage at a low rent—possibly even free of rent; who knows?—on a verbal understanding that, if he needs it in due course for another agricultural employee, the man. or his widow, will move; and, on the whole, I think that works pretty well.

1105
Of course, this clause is designed to protect that situation, but I am not altogether sure it will have that effect, because there is now a legal protection for the employee and/or his widow.
I am afraid that a landlord or a farmer may be a bit more reluctant to allow such people to occupy a vacant agricultural cottage if it is in fact almost certain that he would not be able to remove them and if he had it at the back of his mind that he would need to expand and would require that cottage in two, three or five years' time. In that case, he might be tempted not to allow his own, good employee, especially a short-term one (one who had not been with him for very long), to move into that empty cottage, but would let it in the future only to a non-agricultural employee, against whom he would have the right of eviction, through the courts, under this clause. I think that it is perhaps worth the noble Lord considering the effect that this may have on these people mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b).
This is perhaps talking theoretically as regards the intentions of the clause, but one wonders what is going to happen in practice. In respect to the particular case which I have mentioned, if such people—an ex-employee or a widow of an ex-employee—were in such a cottage, under what procedure would the landlord have to act in order to evict them? Would they then come under Clause 31, which is the clause dealing with the agricultural employee? Would they have to go through that procedure, with the court having to consider the question of the efficient management of the holding; or would they come under the previous clause, Clause 30, which refers to other tied cottages? That is a point for consideration.
But, coming again to subsection (2), it says:
"If … apart from the Rent Acts the landlord would be entitled to recover possession of the dwelling house … ".
Here again, I am not altogether sure that that insertion will not vitiate the whole intention behind this clause; because, if I am not wrong, the Rent Acts do apply to the great majority of agricultural cottages, which are normally under the rateable value of £30. I may be completely wrong and it may be that they do
1106
not apply, but I think they do. If an agricultural cottage is under the old rateable value of £30, it will come under the Rent Acts, in which case none of this clause would operate.
I can see the necessity of including that subsection, or part of the subsection, in the previous clauses, referring to the recovery of possession of an owner-occupied house or a house held for occupation by a minister of religion, because such cases are not likely to come under the Rent Acts anyway; it would be an exception if they did. But I think that nearly all agricultural cottages are subject to the Rent Acts if they are the matter of a tenancy and not a licence—and in this case it would presumably be a tenancy. Therefore, I do not see that we are helping the position very much by way of enabling a landlord, farmer or otherwise, to let his vacant agricultural cottage if it is going to be subject to the Rent Acts—because that is what subsection (2) says. But it may be that I am wrong about this.
My final point is that I want to ask the noble Lord whether he does not think that there is a case for applying this provision to vacant farmhouses also, because there are an increasing number of such farmhouses in the countryside now, as amalgamations of smallholdings go ahead—a policy of which, I believe, the present Government approve. Farms are now often farmed in co-operation, in partnership or in multiple units, with the result that there are quite a number of farmhouses becoming vacant which are very nice properties, which it would be tempting for a landlord to sell. It would be a great pity if such houses were normally sold. They should be kept available for agriculture in case, as a result of re-organisation in the future, they are once again required as farmhouses.
I should have thought that there was a pretty good case for including farmhouses in these provisions. When you are thinking of multiple units of farming and farming companies, there are obviously going to be such people to consider as farm managers—the new technocrats of the agricultural industry, one might call them—and farmhouses would be very suitable for them. I am not sure whether farm managers are included at all under this clause. I should like the noble Lord to turn his mind to

1107
that and let me know whether he thinks that something could be added at the Report stage in order to make this provision apply to farmhouses under such limited conditions as the Government might think fit. I do not think they ought to be excluded altogether; and I think that anybody engaged in agriculture should be enabled to be covered by these provisions, whether in an agricultural cottage or a farmhouse. With those remarks in general, however, I welcome the clause, and I hope the noble Lord can answer these three points that I have made.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: May I ask just one other question? Under the existing system you cannot let an agricultural house to anybody and charge a rent for it, and then get him out when you want to. Does this clause mean that, if you do let a house, and it is a house which is now covered by the Rent Acts, you will then be able to get that house back—provided due notice is given and so on—if you want it for agricultural purposes? At the present moment, under subsection (2)(b) it would seem as if there were no change. I should like to know if the noble Lord could say whether this alters the existing law.
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: Might I just say a few words on subsection (2)(b) to which the noble Lords opposite seem to be attaching too much importance. As I understand it, this is purely a technical provision and it simply says that in order to be able to get possession under this clause you must be able to say that, apart from the Rent Act, you are entitled to possession at Common Law. This means that the proper notice has been served and that the notice complies with the Common Law rules, and so on. This is all that the clause means. It has no sort of restrictive effect, nor has it the effect of limiting cases within or outside the Rent Act. The whole purpose of the clause is to enable you to get possession where otherwise you would be able to get possession only by virtue of provisions of the Rent Act; but, under this clause, you can now get possession, apart from the Rent Act, providing you comply with the Common Law provisions. It does not alter the substance of the matter at all.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I should like to endorse the last part, particularly,
1108
of what my noble friend Lord Hastings said about farmhouses. He might have well gone on to remind us that there is now a policy of amalgamating some holdings which want to be combined with other larger farms. That will mean that there will be two farmhouses, neither of which has been a tied cottage, but one of them will obviously have to be used for the benefit of an agricultural worker. I agree with my noble friend that houses in that category ought to come within the scope of this clause. Whether they do, I do not know. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Champion, will look at that. The reason I am referring to my next point is my inability to interpret the interpretation clause. The word "landlord" is used in various places in this new clause; and I should like to know whether that word covers not only the owner-occupier but also the tenant farmer who has his farm let with a farm cottage. I do not myself know enough about the interpretation of the word "landlord" to know. But it is important that someone should know it.
LORD MITCHISON: I will try to answer some of these points. I agree, with great respect, with what was said by my noble friend in his remarks about the phrase in the Bill:
"apart from the Rent Acts the landlord would be entitled to recover possession …".
The Committee will notice that the phrase is not peculiar to this clause. It has occurred in Clause 14; it is going to occur in Clause 15 and I am not sure that it does not occur also in one or two other places. This does not provide a method of interfering with someone's tenancy or of getting someone out where, for instance, the tenancy could not be terminated apart from the Rent Acts. That is really what is behind it. I think it is a proper thing to put in. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, will now believe that there is nothing sinister about it.
This clause is, in fact, the result of considerable discussions both with the National Farmers' Union and with the agricultural workers; and, as I think my noble friend Lord Champion made clear on Second Reading, we recognised that we were unable to carry out the promise we had given to the agricultural workers that they would not be turned

1109
out unless alternative accommodation were available. The reason was the objection of the rural housing authorities particularly to the "queue-jumping" that anything of that sort was bound to produce. Let us say we ought never to have said it; but there was a case both ways. We finally accepted the provision in this form. It was following on that that the discussions with the agricultural workers and with the National Farmers' Union took place. I understand that the National Farmers' Union were finally satisfied with this clause; but I am in no position to be certain. I may be wrong; if I am told that that is not so I accept it.
I was then asked about the position of farmhouses. With respect, this is rather a limited clause. It has nothing to do with farmhouses as such, and I do not know how you would apply it to farmhouses. Let us see clearly what it requires in order to come into operation. In the first place, you have to have an occupation, not necessarily a tenancy, by a person employed in agriculture and who has to occupy the dwelling under the terms of his employment. The most obvious instance I should have thought was a stockman, although I can think of other cases, too. Secondly, when he goes you have to have a let on a regulated tenancy; and there are exceptions to the kind of let which will operate to bring the Clause into effect. A let to a person who is, or was, at any time employed by the landlord—and that refers back to a previous reference—or his widow does not bring the clause into operation. But leaving exceptions out, if there is a let on a regulated tenancy you then come to the point where the clause bites. If the requisite notice has been given and the court is satisfied that the dwelling is required for occupation by another, a second, agricultural labourer employed by the farmer, then the court makes an order.
There are, again, in this case instances of rights to get back accommodation for your employees under the existing Rent Acts, which I will not go into. This deals simply with the case where between two tenancies, if I may use a general word, there is a temporary lease to someone. That is the only thing it deals with. It is therefore a clause of quite small effect; but it prevents the position arising of the stockman's house having been
1110
vacated and the farmer being unable to let it again because he is not sure that he can get out the man who is coming temporarily. It is therefore a considerable protection not only to the farmer but to the second agricultural labourer, the second man, who may equally require to occupy the house by nature of his job. It is not that he necessarily should, as the clause stands, but it is going to be very likely I think.
The provision in paragraph (c) is rather wider, and for this reason. The stockman may go away; the place may be temporarily let; the farmer may then change from, say, keeping stock (or from keeping stock on that scale) to some other form of farming. It seems reasonable that the farmer should be able to get a house back for an employee generally and not be tied, under paragraph (c), to the case of the man who is required to occupy it for the purposes of his job. I hope I have made this point clear. I stress it on purpose because it has been a little misunderstood. I do not know if I have covered the point that the noble Baroness raised.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: Thank you; you have.
LORD MITCHISON: Have I still left something unanswered?
8.40 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: I do not expect the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, to comment on my general observations on the situation of the retired agricultural employee or his widow, but I did ask a question. If one of the people mentioned in subsection (1) (a) or (b) were to be rented a vacant cottage on the farm of his previous employer, and the employer then wanted to put in another man to work his holding, under what clause would the employer have to apply to the court to get rid of the people occupying the cottage? Would it be under Clause 31, which refers to agricultural cottages, or would he apply under Clause 30, which is the normal court procedure, giving a suspension of up to six weeks?
LORD MITCHISON: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, will not think me discourteous if I suggest that these later clauses might be considered when we come to them. I would just repeat

1111
the very narrow ambit of this clause. There has to be an occupation under the terms of employment by an agricultural worker. The second stage is a regulated tenancy to someone other than an employee of the landlord, or the widow. If those two things have happened, and the landlord wants the house for an agricultural employee (not necessarily a man who is to occupy the premises for the purpose of his employment, but an agricultural employee), the landlord can, subject to the other conditions in the clause, get it back. This is rather a narrow clause. It meets the real difficulty of the farmer who has lost, say, a stockman and is unable to let his cottage pending the arrival of another agricultural employee who may or may not be another stockman. I hope I have made myself clear.
LORD HASTINGS: I am afraid that it is I who failed to make myself clear. I am concerned to know whether, under subsection (1), if the landlord lets this vacant farm cottage to a person who is, or at any time was, employed by him, or to the widow of any such person, it means that the landlord can never get them out. Or, if he wants to get the cottage back—suppose he was trying to help the occupant temporarily out of the kindness of his heart—would he apply to the court under Clause 30 or under Clause 31? We cannot discuss it in relation to those clauses, because it does not arise; or am I right in thinking that he could never get rid of the occupant?
LORD MITCHISON: I do not think that that conclusion should be drawn. I am keeping strictly to this clause which in those circumstances does not bite. There is no doubt about that. That is to say, if there is first an occupation by a stockman—I take that simple case—and secondly a let to a person who is, or at any time was so employed, that is to say the previous type of employment, by the landlord; if that happens, this clause does not bite; that is to say, the remedy is not available in that case. Perhaps we had better take other remedies when we come to them.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I asked the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, a question about the definition of "landlord" to which I do not think that he has replied.
LORD MITCHISON: I am sorry, I am not sure whether I got the question right. Would it help if I put it this way—an owner-occupier is not a landlord, because he has not a tenant? "Landlord" implies the existence of a tenant.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I am sorry, I did not make myself clear to the noble Lord. My point is this. Some farmers farm as owner-occupiers and some as tenant farmers on farms rented by a landlord. Each may have a tied cottage. Does the word "landlord" in this clause apply equally to the owner-occupier's tied cottage and to the tenant farmer's tied cottage?
LORD MITCHISON: Yes, I think clearly it does, provided that he has a tenant, and it is assumed that he has a tenant. The term "landlord" is perhaps more loosely used where there is not a tenancy but a licence. I do not think it matters whether the landlord has fair hair or dark hair, whether he has a bank balance or not, or whether he holds his farm property under this or that tenure. As I understand it, "landlord" means simply, for these purposes, someone who is in the relation of landlord to a tenant. I repeat that it is often loosely used to cover a licensee. It is not really the right word. I am sorry if I have not made the point clear, but I have tried.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: That covers the point I wanted to raise and I thank the noble Lord.
Clause 16 [Provisions as to improvements]:
LORD CHAMPION: I think that it might be convenient if we discussed Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 together. They are very simple Amendments and closely related to the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Mitchison. The purpose of these Amendments is to provide that where a dwelling-house near an aerodrome managed by the British Airports Authority is improved by works of sound insulation which are financed by a scheme made under Section 15 of the Airports Authority Act, 1965, the increased rent which the landlord may obtain, prior to the registration of a fair rent, shall be 12½ per cent. of the amount he has spent on the works but exclusive of any financial assistance he has received

1113
by way of a grant made by the Authority. This means that these rents will be treated in the same way as improvement grants under the Housing Acts and repayments from public funds under Section 12 of the Clean Air Act, 1956 in respect of the installation of smokeless fuel burning appliances. I beg to move
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 14, leave out first ("or").—(Lord Champion.)
LORD CHAMPION: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 15, after ("1959") insert ("or section 15 of the Airports Authority Act 1965").—(Lord Champion.)
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Duty of landlord to supply statement of rent under previous tenancy]:
LORD MITCHISON: This is a comparatively small Amendment by way of compromise. The clause provides that a landlord has fourteen days after receiving a request to supply a statement of rents under a previous tenancy. In another place it was suggested that this period was too short, and an Amendment was moved to extend it to 28 days. The right honourable and learned gentleman the Attorney General undertook, as a compromise, to alter the period to twenty-one days, and that an Amendment to that effect would be moved here. This is that Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 3, leave out ("fourteen") and insert ("twenty-one").—(Lord Mitchison.)
LORD NEWTON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord and the Government for this Amendment. Obviously 14 days was too short a period. This seems to be a reasonable compromise.
LORD MITCHISON: Perhaps 28 days was too long?
LORD NEWTON: I should not necessarily be thought to agree with that.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 [Tenancies ending before commencement of Act]:
8.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved, in subsection (1)(b), after the second "made", to insert:
"and after hearing such other person or persons as may in the opinion of the court be directly concerned".
The noble Earl said: I beg to move this Amendment. It is designed to prevent an unjust and, I believe, wholly iniquitous situation arising where an innocent party enters into a contractual tenancy and at a later date finds that it becomes null and void due to a court order being made without any reference to him. Under Clause 19, a tenant who would be entitled to claim a regulated tenancy but who has received a notice to quit, following a court order for possession, may, if he is still in possession of his premises when the Bill passes into law, appeal to the courts to rescind the order for possession on the ground that such an order would not have been granted under the provisions of this Bill.
The Amendment is designed to deal with the sort of situation where a landlord, with a court order for possession in his pocket, enters into a new tenancy agreement with a third party and this third party, completely innocent, goes through the usual costly business of moving into the premises, only to find at the last moment that, without reference to him, a court order has cancelled his tenancy. Two questions would immediately arise out of this situation. What compensation would a third party be entitled to; and from whom? Secondly, why is no reference made to the hardship which the third party must suffer? These questions were put to the Government on the Committee stage in another place, and the answers then given were that, first, an innocent third party under this Bill is given no compensation from either court or landlord, and, further, that the landlord would be protected against any subsequent action for breach of contract under the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act, 1943; and secondly, that under this clause a third party would have no right of hearing in court proceedings.
When pressed on the iniquitous situation that might arise, Mr. MacColl admitted that this had arisen under the

1115
Protection from Eviction Act, which he said was a temporary measure, and in the light of this more permanent measure he went on to say:
"There is a good case for looking at this matter very carefully in order to see whether anything more could be done to deal with the rights of third parties and I undertake to do that before Report."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons), Vol. 715 (No. 142), col. 392, June 29, 1965.]
I am sorry to say that on looking at the proceedings on Report stage, I find that no mention was made of this matter at all, and Mr. MacColl's undertaking was therefore not fulfilled. I would ask the Government to accept this Amendment. I feel that there is a real issue of principle here. A perfectly genuine and innocent third party is unjustly treated. This Amendment seeks no more than to allow such a person a hearing at the court proceedings. Even if the court decision goes against him, at least he will feel that his case has been heard. I am sure that the courts and any fair-minded person would welcome this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 22, after "made" insert the said words.—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I support what my noble friend Lord Kinnoull has said. I think that the heading of Clause 19 is itself of some importance in showing that the clause is clearly only transitional, and obviously these situations will not continue for long after the Bill becomes an Act. Nevertheless, the case that my noble friend has made out seems to me to be worthy of further consideration, and I hope that the noble Lord will be sympathetic to it.
When I first looked at the Amendment, I wondered whether there might be some difficulty in the court deciding who would be directly concerned as third party in this matter, but I expect that the person who has taken the tenancy, or thinks he has taken the tenancy, of a house, the possession of which the court has given to the landlord, although the order has not been executed, will be very much aware of what is going on, and I do not think that the court would have the slightest difficulty in finding out who was interested in it. As this is a transitional matter and puts right the possibility of any hardship arising out of this Bill, I hope
1116
that the Government will be able to accept this Amendment.
LORD MITCHISON: I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment. A provision like Clause 19 was included in the Rent Act 1920 (Section 5(3)) and in the Rent Act 1939 (Section 4), but it was not thought necessary to put in either Act a provision on the lines suggested in the Amendment. We have no evidence at all of any hardship having ensued. I should have thought that the fact that restrictions were being imposed on the right of a landlord to obtain possession of premises is tolerably well known, even if people do not know exactly what they are, and it is unlikely that there will he any trouble. But I have a broader objection than that. This Amendment does not give compensation to anybody. It does not add to anybody's rights in any way. The issue before the court remains exactly what it would be, whether or not this Amendment were inserted.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I cannot see how that is so, because the court has power to rescind the possession order or vary it. If it chooses not to rescind it, that presumably means that it decides upon the basis that the house has been let to somebody else; but how can it come to that conclusion if it has not that other person before it to tell the court about that fact?
LORD MITCHISON: I do not think that the noble Viscount could have been listening to what I was saying. This Amendment does not give anybody compensation or alter anybody's rights. How can it? It simply enjoins the court in certain circumstances to hear
"such other person or persons as may in the opinion of the court be directly concerned."
The Amendment does not alter by a jot or tittle, except possibly by giving the right to be heard in certain cases—I will deal with that in a moment—the rights of anybody, and it does not give anybody any compensation for anything. Arguments founded on that are, with great respect, misconceived.
All it does is this: it enjoins on the court to hear such other person or persons as may in the opinion of the court be directly concerned—and that, I imagine, must mean directly concerned

1117
with the issue before the court. Either party can call those persons. If they are not called, what will happen? Is the court to call them? It is a remarkable piece of procedure, if so. I should have thought that in this particular case there was no doubt that if they were relevant witnesses—that is to say, relevant to the issue before the court—somebody would call them and they would be heard.
I am not clear what the purpose of all this is. It appears to me to be an indirect attempt to alter the issue before the court, or to direct the court or the parties as to what evidence should be heard. I see no room for that. I regard it, with respect—not, of course, as an Amendment of first-rate importance; nobody would claim that for it—as an Amendment which is mistaken, in that it is trying to tell the court what evidence the court should or should not hear.
If anybody is going to defend it, I should like to know the answer to two questions. Is the court bound to call these witnesses if neither party does so; and is there any precedent for anything of the sort in this kind of litigation? Secondly, if the court is to know whether the witnesses are directly concerned, how is it going to find out? Thirdly, if, in fact, the witnesses are to be called in some way or another, is it intended that they shall be empowered to give any evidence that they would not otherwise be able to give?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The noble Lord wanted the answer to two questions and asked three. I appreciate that there may be a certain novelty in this; but the mere fact that similar provisions have appeared in other Acts of Parliament in the past without the type of Amendment that we are here suggesting cannot possibly be a reason for our not considering it now. The fact remains that there must be situations under this Bill, as it is now drafted (and I am talking about the clause at the moment), where the court is going to be asked by the person against whom the possession order was made to rescind or vary that order. The court will be asked to do this. I assume, on some sort of grounds of hardship. If that is so, there will have to be an adjudication between hardship on
1118
the tenant, who has not yet had the order executed against him, and hardship on the landlord. In those circumstances, I doubt whether there was necessarily any hardship to be put forward on the landlord's personal behalf, that he had let the house to somebody else. The other person to whom he had let the house, however, might have a distinct case of hardship. I do not see what good it will be for the landlord to call that third party as a witness as to the landlord's hardship, because it will have nothing whatever to do with the landlord's hardship.
What we are suggesting is that the third party himself may have a case of hardship which the court might like to consider when making up its mind whether to rescind or vary the order. The procedure, I agree, probably wants more thinking about, but there is a basic point here, if you are trying to deal in these transitional circumstances with a matter involving hardship between two people—we say three—and something to be said for allowing the third person to appear before the court. I appreciate that there will be some difficulties, and we shall probably have to return to these if the noble Lord is willing to think about it again. I think there is something to be said for allowing the third party to come to the court and tell the court what his position is.
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: This is a well-meaning Amendment, but I should have thought that it was unworkable. It appears to impose on the court an impossible burden of in some way broadcasting the existence of these proceedings, and then informing itself of who may or may not be concerned. What this conception of being concerned involves is obscure. For example, is the child of a landlord, or the child of a tenant to whom the premises are re-let, entitled to be heard? Is the court under a duty to advertise the proceedings; and during what period of time? I should have thought that, in relation to a short transitional period of this kind, it would be quite unworkable to try to impose a burden of this kind on the court. Moreover, I should have thought that as these are proceedings between the landlord and the tenant, any matter which arises in relation to some act of the landlord by re-letting the premises, or something

1119
of that kind, is something which the landlord could bring before the court, and it is a matter then for the court to take into account in deciding whether or not to suspend the order. But to open it to a kind of free-for-all, to anybody who might be considered in some remote way to be affected, involves, it seems to me, a quite unworkable conception, and something which certainly ought to be resisted.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Before the noble Lord replies, I have had one thought on this matter while the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, was speaking. Is there any reason why the third party, at the risk of having to pay the costs if he turns out to be so unconcerned in the matter as the noble Lord feels, should not join himself with the respondent to the application under paragraph (b)? I cannot see why he should not become a party. It is entirely up to him. If he joins himself with the landlord in resisting the application which is being made by the tenant, what harm is there in that? And what difficulty does it place the court in?
LORD MITCHISON: I hope that we shall keep somewhat remotely near the Amendment we are discussing. The cat has now come out of the bag! This is a determined effort to turn a witness into a party. You can go too far on those lines. I should like to remind your Lordships, and particularly the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, of Lindley on Partnership, where an attempt to wind up a partnership of highwaymen resulted in severe punishment, not only to the counsel, but to the solicitor engaged. Once you get this confusion between third parties and witnesses, lawyers and their clients, and things of that kind, there is no knowing where you may end. I suggest that if the noble Viscount wants to add additional parties to a county court action, he should put down an Amendment designed to do that. He knows perfectly well the difference between an Amendment for that purpose and an Amendment which is intended to oblige the courts, somehow or another, to hear certain witnesses.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I think we have strayed a little from the Amendment. The main purpose of my Amendment,
1120
as I saw it, was to give an opportunity for the third party to have the right of a hearing in a court. This is all I am asking. What I would perhaps ask the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, for is his advice on this matter, because when this matter was raised the Government spokesman in another place clearly said:
"I confirm that the prospective tenant would not have the right of audience."
The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, appeared to say in his reply that this would not be so, and that he would be entitled.
LORD MITCHISON: No.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: Anyway,
am sorry that there has been some doubt about this, and in this instance I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20:

PART II

  REGISTRATION OF RENTS
  Operation of Part II
  20.—(1) This part of this Act shall come into operation on such date as the Minister may by order appoint, and different days may be so appointed for different registration areas.
  9.10 p.m.
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved to add to subsection (1):
  "Provided that the date so appointed shall not he later than nine months from the date on which this Act is passed; and this Act shall cease to have effect thereafter in any registration area in respect of which no such date has been appointed."
  The noble Viscount said: I hope the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, does not really think that my noble friend Lord Kinnoull and myself are in partnership with highwaymen, or, indeed, that we belong to the same profession. In fact, we do not. We now come on to Part II of the Bill and the registration of rents. It has been quite clear that one of the underlying principles that the Government are determined upon, so far as this Bill is concerned, is that there shall be a nationwide system of regulation. Equally, this will take a certain length of time to set up. In another place, I

  1121
  gather that the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government said in Standing Committee:
  "I should say that the period would be well within twelve months for the completion of England and Wales."
  He said that he thought six months would do for Scotland. On the other hand, there is nothing in the Bill at all to suggest that there is any urgency.
  I know various statements have been made by noble Lords opposite, and by the Government in another place, that they are getting on with this, but I have put down this Amendment really in order to see how far the matter has gone. I know that when we were dealing with the Law Commissioners the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had done a great deal of sounding out of the ground while the legislation was in process, and in fact selected, as it proved, those whom my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne rightly thought he had selected. In fact, my noble and learned friend was quite right in the names he mentioned in your Lordships' House. Similarly, I imagine in this case that the noble and learned Lord is cooperating with the Minister, and that in setting up the machinery under this Bill he has done quite a bit of spade work in order to get the right people selected and the committees more or less formed, ready to go into action. Patently, the places that would be tackled first are London and the conurbations. On the other hand, there will be a large number of country districts where, quite honestly, at the moment there is no problem in this respect at all, and little incentive to get on at any speed with the setting up of the committees, the rent officers, and all the other things required under this Bill, but where, all the same, all rents are going to be frozen until such time as this machinery is put into operation.
  The right honourable gentleman the Minister said that he does not want more than twelve months, so it seemed to me that as a display of the earnestness of the Government's resolution in this matter they would be very happy indeed to accept this Amendment, because quite clearly if they are right and they will be able to do it as quickly as that, then they have nothing to fear from it. On the other hand, if they accept the Amend
  1122
  ment and do not get on with the job as they promised they will, and as I am sure they will, they will be in a situation that in the area concerned the Bill will not apply. I have not worked out what the consequences will be, but I am sure they will be severe so far as the Government are concerned, and that they would not wish this to happen. Accepting for the moment that this regulation must be countrywide, there must be some guarantee that the speed will be up to the promises of the Government.
  I hope that we can have a progress report towards the end of July this year or towards the end of the time when Parliament has this Bill before it, which will show us how the Government are getting on, and how soon they are going to deal, not with the important areas which I know will be tackled at once, but with the less populated areas, the agricultural areas, where quite a lot of people live, and where I think there will be a great deal of dismay if they find that for a long period of time their rents are frozen; they do not know where they are; they have no rent officer and nobody to appeal to—the whole matter will be in a state of confusion. I hope, therefore, that as I have moved this Amendment in this spirit, noble Lords opposite will be able to respond and tell us how they are getting on. I beg to move
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 43, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
  LORD MITCHISON: I welcome wholeheartedly the enthusiasm of the Opposition to get this Bill working quickly. I had my doubts about it during some of the earlier discussions in Committee, but they were, of course, purely personal doubts, a matter of personal impression. I am now entirely reassured by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. We have it from him that he is really anxious that the Bill should be brought into operation as soon as possible. He is not alone. After all, there was no opposition to it on Second Reading, either below or here, and we were congratulated on bringing in such a courageous Bill. I remember that that adjective was used several times. No doubt great minds think alike on those occasions. We welcome this. It is entirely our own point of view about it, and our reason for it is a simple one:

  1123
  we want to get this Bill working as rapidly as possible because we think there is some urgency in the problem with which it seeks to deal, which is, broadly speaking, in a great part of the country the effects of the Rent Act, 1957 and the shortage of houses and accommodation. It is quite true that it does not apply to the same extent in the country districts, but that is our reason for wishing to have this Bill.
  There is one other point. I do not think any Amendment has been moved in this House suggesting that the Bill should be limited to certain areas. There has been a suggestion that the rateable values should be limited, and that was approved by the House, but there has been no suggestion that it should not apply to all parts of the country. I think this is a matter which should be of general application. The system which is being set up will no doubt have different effects in different parts of the country, but it should be applied everywhere. That being so, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, can take it from me that it is in the highest degree impossible that when we have got this Bill into its final form we shall be slow in putting it into operation. Rent officers cannot be appointed under a Bill which is not yet in force; we cannot appoint rent assessment committees or start to make the Bill function until we know the final form. Your Lordships have not finished with it yet, and it by no means follows that another place will necessarily accept all the Amendments which will appeal to your Lordships. Therefore it is obviously premature to start making the arrangements under the Bill, and no such official start of any kind has been, or can be, made.
  It is perfectly true that my right honourable friend has made a number of inquiries about the framework of this Bill from local authorities. That is the usual course for any Minister of Housing and Local Government to take, certainly in a Bill which directly affects local authorities, and also I think in Bills of this kind. But those discussions have been purely informal, and we cannot undertake that we shall proceed with any given speed through all the consultations which will have to be considered when the Bill becomes law. I would remind your Lordships that outside the Greater London
  1124
  area there are 45 county councils and 78 county boroughs, so that there are 123 sets of negotiations to be carried through on the question of rent officers, rent assessment committees, and the other machinery which has to be set up with the collaboration of local authorities. Sometimes the negotiations with local authorities are a trifle difficult. Suppose Rutland, for instance, wanted to make joint arrangements with some other county, as it does over a bewildering variety of matters. It might take a little time to do this, and it is simply impossible to fix a time for it.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has got a great deal of good sense in these matters. Does he really think it likely that we are going to be slow? This is a major Bill designed to remedy a major grievance and to alleviate great hardship in a number of cases. The noble Viscount can be assured that we do not need a timetable in order to proceed with speed; but, equally in a case of this sort, where this large number of consultations is involved, one cannot expect any Minister to accept a timetable, whether it is nine months, as now suggested here, or six months, as was suggested by the noble Lord's friends in another place—six, seven, eight or nine months, whatever it is. He really must take it, I suggest, that the Minister in a Government introducing a major Bill, which we, at any rate, believe to be remedying a major mischief, is not going to be slow in bringing it into operation. If there is going to be any slowness it may occur in other ways; it will not be our fault; we shall do our best to operate it.
  For these reasons, I cannot accept this Amendment. I do not think the noble Viscount really expected me to: he did not move it in that sense, but he asked for a timetable of some sort. I can only say that it is too soon to give any promise of that sort, because a great deal of this work can be done only when the Bill has assumed its final form. What has happened previously has been an informal matter, as always occurs in this kind of case. That is the position. May I suggest, with great respect, that if anybody wants to know how things are going on, the best way to find out is to put down a Question later on, when we have

  1125
  had time to get started properly on this business.
  THE EARL OF KINNOULL: May I ask the noble Lord one question? I believe that many people are worried that under this Bill, in order to enforce rentals they have to be registered. The question that many people ask is this: where a landlord and tenant agree amicably on a rent and then the tenant goes back on his word, is the landlord able to recover the rent he originally agreed by contract or has he to wait for that rent to be registered?
  LORD MITCHISON: I am not quite sure that I have the point correctly, but I will try to answer it, and the noble Earl will tell me if I have not understood him. First of all, there is nothing in this Bill to prevent a landlord and tenant from agreeing a rent, and there is no need for them to register that rent when it is agreed. But either of them may protest against a rent, even a rent which has previously been agreed, and seek the conciliatory services of the rent officer and, finally, a determination of the rent assessment committee. That, I suggest, is only right; because, after all, a rent agreed at one time may not necessarily be a fair rent a year or two later, and there must be some rights of that sort. I think the suggestion was that once the parties had agreed a rent the sanctity of contract obliged them to keep to it. My short answer to that is, "Not in these short tenancies". No doubt the matter is different where you are considering a long lease and the rent has been agreed; and you may find that a ground rent under a long lease has become something which under modern conditions does not represent the bargain but goes back in history. But in the cases which we are dealing with here, surely sanctity of contract does not oblige the parties to turn into a perpetual contract what was intended to be only a short-term matter.
  LORD NEWTON: I think everyone accepts that the preparation of the machinery is going to take some time. We are not asking the Government to do any more than they say they can do themselves. We suggested a period of nine months because, having read very carefully what the Minister said in another place, this seemed to be what the
  1126
  Minister thought he could do comparatively easily. We thought it advisable to write into the Bill the Minister's intentions as we understood them to be. The noble Lord shakes his head, but that is the reason why my noble friend and I put this Amendment down.
  As regards the sting in the tail, that is to say the second part of the Amendment, the reason for that was simply this: that when a somewhat similar Amendment was moved in another place, although making the time limit shorter, one of the reasons why it was resisted by the Parliamentary Secretary was that it left somewhat uncertain what would happen afterwards in a registration area if the machinery had not been set up. That is a fair point, and I should have thought we had met that point pretty effectively in this Amendment.
  I have not the slightest doubt, nor do I think anyone has, that the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, and other spokesmen for the Government meant exactly what they said, and they have said many times that they want to get the machinery of this Bill in operation as soon as possible. The point is this: that Acts of Parliament are timeless until such time as they are repealed or amended, and Ministers are not; nor are Governments. This is one reason why we thought it ought to be written into the Bill.
  The other one is simply this: that the rent freeze which is inevitable until the machinery for the registration of rents comes into operation may cause equal hardship to tenants in the one case and to landlords in the other. Everybody will want the machinery for the fixing of fair rents and the registration thereof set up and found to be working as quickly as possible in areas where rents are too high—of course they will. But because the scope of this Bill covers the whole country, inevitably it covers, and will cover, areas in which there is no great shortage of houses to let and therefore where there is no great hardship.
  Will there not perhaps be pressure put upon the Government not to bring Part II of the Act into operation in areas where there is no scarcity and where rents are not too high? There is the subtle point of Clauses 11 and 12. As we know, Clause 12 provides the machinery by

  1127
  which properties can be taken out of control altogether. We also know that this particular clause was strongly opposed by the noble Lord's own Party in another place. But the subtlety is this: that you cannot take the present controlled rents (that is to say, rents controlled under the 1957 Act) out of control except by passing, first of all, through the stage of regulation; and you cannot have regulated rents until the machinery has been set up for fixing fair rents and for registering the rents. If the Government could be persuaded to delay the setting-up of the machinery in certain areas where rents are not high, that would be a fairly effective way of stopping the decontrol of those properties which are at present controlled under the 1957 Act. Those are the sort of things we had in mind in putting down this Amendment.
  LORD MITCHISON: I think the noble Lord, Lord Newton, has made out quite a strong case for something of this sort if we had had a Tory Government, but that is all.
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am bound to confess that the noble Lord does not miss his chances. I hope that there is no thought in the minds of noble Lords opposite that the forecast that was made by the right honourable gentleman in another place is in any way likely to prove inaccurate. I do not remember the noble Lord saying anything on this particular point. Is there any indication at the moment that this time limit is not going to be practically possible? I shall be glad to hear.
  LORD MITCHISON: I do not know what the noble Viscount thinks he heard. I am much obliged to him for giving way. I said nothing about it because it did not seem to me to be relevant to this Amendment, and nobody appears to wish to dispute it. I really must ask him to accept that my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, with all the resources of his Department, knows a great deal more about this than I do, and possibly even more than does the noble Viscount.
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I think that is more than probable. On the other hand, I should have assumed that somebody from the right honourable
  1128
  gentleman's Department might have spoken to the noble Lord before he came to your Lordships' House this evening.
  LORD MITCHISON: Not on this matter.
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am sorry to hear that. I think that the noble Lord has given us the hint. We will have an arrangement by which each county is represented upon your Lordships' Order Paper, with questions right the way through in October, November, December, January, and February next year to see how, in each county, county borough, in Scotland, in Wales, and in England the rent control regulations are getting on. I hope the noble Lord will be able to give us a very satisfactory answer to each of them. I beg leave to withdrawn my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 20 agreed to.
  Clause 21:
  Registration areas and rent officers in England and Wales
  21.—
  (3) A scheme under this section—

  (a) shall provide for the payment by the local authority to rent officers and deputy rent officers of remuneration and allowances in accordance with scales approved by the Treasury:

  9.32 p.m.
  LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved, in subsection (3), to insert as a new paragraph:
  "() shall require that persons appointed as rent officers or deputy rent officers shall have experience of property management or of property valuation;"
  The noble Lord said: In his Second Reading speech the Minister described the functions which he hoped would be discharged by the rent officers. He referred to them as being a very important part of the machinery. He obviously hoped that very frequently the advice which they gave when acting as conciliators would avoid the matter being taken to the Tribunals. He said:
  "That is why I want to emphasise that rent officers need not be qualified surveyors or qualified lawyers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons), Vol. 710 (No. 92). col. 49; April 5, 1965.]

  1129
  That I wholly accept. But when he was pressed as to what kind of people he wanted to appoint, he said that he would be discussing with the clerks of the county councils and towns how to select them. He said that the kind of people that he had in mind were [col. 50]:
  "People who had been housing managers, for example, or public health inspectors. There are, fortunately, a great many people to-day with a wide knowledge and understanding of these things."
  What we are anxious about is that these rent officers shall not be partial people. Let us be frank about it. In another place the Minister was much criticised by some of his Left-Wing friends who considered that his proposals for increased rent, and so on, which he said were necessary to cope with increasing costs of repairs, went too far. When he was dealing with the clause about increases and fair rents, and providing for steps of only 15 per cent. per annum, there were those on his side who said that 15 per cent. was quite enough for all—in other words, not 15 per cent. per annum, but 15 per cent., once and for all.
  It is of the utmost importance that we should have some assurance from the Government that the rent officers are not going to be people with a strong prejudice against landlords, that they will not be people who do not recognise that a fair rent involves taking into consideration the cost of building new houses and of repairing old ones. It is because we feel it important that we should have some assurance of that kind that I have put down this Amendment that these officers should have some experience of property management or of property valuation. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 15, at end insert the said paragraph. —(Lord Molson.)
  LORD HAWKE: I heartily support this Amendment, but in so doing I suggest to Her Majesty's Government that they may have to alter the usual attitude of the Civil Service towards the employment of part-time people in this business. The attitude of the whole-time Civil Service is, on the whole, against the employment in Government service of part-time employees, but in order to obtain people with the necessary qualifications and ex
  1130
  perience I think it will almost be certain that Her Majesty's Government will have to go to people who are semi-retired. There are a great many people who are semi-retired, and who are perfectly capable of doing light work in a skill of which they have considerable experience, but who are not really capable of a full-time slogging job of the 9 to 5 character. From the point of view of national resources, I think it is a great pity that in this country so little use is made of people of that nature, largely stemming from the prejudice of the professional civil servant against using part-time employees. With that proviso, I give the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Molson my hearty support.
  LORD CHAMPION: The Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, is of course one of very great importance. We do want to be fair to the landlords, which is the point he made, but of course we also have to be fair to the tenants. Both of them are entitled to our consideration in this connection. We recognise that it is vital that the rent officer, whose job it will be to assess the rent of a particular property, shall be a man of standing and a man who can really do the job in such a way as to meet the necessity for fairness as between landlord and tenant. As paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 says, he is required to determine a fair rent for a dwelling that in some cases does not yet even exist.
  The noble Lord has to some extent argued—and this has certainly been argued by others—that the less rigid the fair rent formula is under Clause 26 of this Bill, the more necessary it is that the rent officer should be an expert in this field of property valuation. It has also been argued—I think it was argued by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, on Second Reading—and I regard this as being of some importance, that inexpert valuations may cause the system to break down under appeal. It was also argued (and I hope your Lordships do not mind if I answer some of these points at this stage) that if the rent officer is not really expert in this field, he will be "easy meat" for the lawyers and other experts who will want to argue cases before him.
  Before I go on to the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Hawke,

  1131
  that it is the Minister's intention to use part-time people in some of these matters. The Minister has said it, and I am sure that he will do it. I am also sure he recognises that there are a number of people with the necessary knowledge who have, perhaps, left local government employment, but could give only part-time service to the job. I am fairly sure that he will want to use those people in this scheme, and that he will have this point ever in mind in discussing schemes with the local government authorities, which of course he has to do.
  The noble Lord, Lord Molson, has of course given to the Committee some weighty arguments. I recognise that he is knowledgeable in this field of valuation, local government, et cetera. But, on the other hand, of course, we have the very weighty and knowledgeable testimony of the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Brighton, who on Second Reading said:
  "But I believe—and I say that the tribunals for furnished house rentals show—that if you get sensible people who know the neighbourhood, who know something of the value of properties, you get just as good valuation as would be obtained if you took up the impossible position of asking for experts who are not available because there is too much demand for them at the moment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 267 (No. 99), col. 1499, July 8, 1965.]
  I think my noble friend Lord Cohen of Brighton was on two sound points there. The first is that the furnished houses rent tribunals set up under the Act of 1946 have, for all the years that have passed since then, been doing a similar job without much complaint, or with very little complaint. Indeed, I must admit that I have heard of very few. Few of the members of those tribunals were in fact valuers. The lawyers who presided were not expected necessarily to have a special knowledge of valuation, and they were given no complicated formula to which to work. They just had to fix reasonable rents. My noble friend also said that experts were in very short supply. If they are in fact in very short supply, the effect of this Amendment, if it were incorporated into the Bill, might well be to delay, perhaps for a long time, the bringing into operation of Part II of the Bill. For, without the rent officers, upon which so much depends, how is the Minister in fact going to give us the early operation, or the operation
  1132
  at all, of that part of the Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, himself described as "courageous"?
  This is important. Unless the Minister can get these schemes working, it is going to do precisely what the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and others talked about on the last Amendment; it is going to delay it for a long time. We do not want this. We want this scheme to be working as quickly as possible, first of all to deal with the rents that will now be controlled under this Bill but which were decontrolled under the 1957 Act; and, secondly, in fairness to the landlords, we want the scheme to be ready to work for those houses that are still controlled because they remained controlled after the 1957 Act. If we cannot find the people to do this job—sensible people, such as the Minister talked about on Committee stage and on Second Reading in the other place—then this scheme will be delayed. And if we are going to say that they must have a professional qualification, this is going to make it very much more difficult.
  LORD MOLSON: If the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him, I was careful not to say "a professional qualification" when I moved this Amendment. I did not want to ask the Minister to go back on exactly what he had said. I said "of some experience"; and, of course, what I had in mind was the kind of housing manager to whom he referred as the kind of person he would like to appoint. But I did want to make it certain that there would not be any partisans (if I may use that expression), without any knowledge of valuation or of house management.
  LORD CHAMPION: I am sure that the Minister will be with the noble Lord in so far as it is possible to obtain those people, in so far as they are available to him. He will not want people who are partisan. I am sure of this, because he has introduced this. If we had wanted to be very partisan about this, we should have stuck rigidly to the conditions which applied before the 1957 Act and we should have stuck rigidly to the old system of rent control. I should have thought that wrong in the circumstances, because I agree with the noble Lord that something had to be done—and this, we think, is the way to do it.

  1133
  But then, of course, there is the other point that, against the decisions of the rent officers, there is always the right of appeal to the assessment committees, and the assessment committees will normally consist of a lawyer, a valuer and a lay member. From the results of such appeals and rulings I should think that the rent officer would be able to build up quite quickly a code of everyday practice upon which to base his further advice and his determinations. The Minister of Housing and Local Government has throughout emphasised that he wants to get people of the highest quality to do this work, and that there are many people in local government who know a great deal about housing and its problems, although having no valuers' qualifications, and perhaps no actual experience of valuation or property management, but that, if they are qualified, so much the better.
  What we are seeking to do by this Bill is to ensure a situation which will be just to the landlord and just to the tenant. I am quite sure that my right honourable friend will not deliberately go out of his way, or appear to do so, to select people who would be biased one way or the other. I do not think that he intends to do that. I hope that, with this virtual undertaking that I am giving the Committee, the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
  LORD WOLVERTON: I am rather disappointed at the answers of the noble Lord, Lord Champion. Getting experienced rent officers is the key to the successful working of the Bill. Ascertaining a fair rent is no easy job. I think that some rent officers will have to be part-time, because there is a great shortage of suitable staff in local government departments—in planning, roads, health and so on. Surely the part-time men chosen for this work would be retired housing officers or retired rating officers. They would be experienced. I can see nothing but good in writing into the Bill what the Minister intends; because Ministers come and go, but Acts of Parliament remain on the Statute Book for a number of years. These men should have experience in property management and valuation. One of the most important features of the Bill is that men of high calibre are appointed. I am sure that it is the intention of the Minister to do that, and I see
  1134
  no reason why it should not go into the Bill.
  LORD ILFORD: May I put one point to the noble Lord? The noble Lord spoke more than once of the appeal from the rent officer to the rent assessment committee. May I ask whether it is intended that there should be any further appeal from the rent assessment committees? I cannot find provision for such an appeal, but the Bill is not very straightforward and such a provision may be there and I may have overlooked it. Is it the intention of the Government that there should be some further appeal from the rent assessment committees?
  LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: Perhaps I might venture to deal with the point which has just been raised, although maybe a reply from the Front Bench is required. As I understand it, it was never the intention of this Bill to have an appeal from the rent assessment committee. The appeal referred to was from the rent officer. It is a two-tier structure; not a three-tier one.
  The other point I wish to make is this. I find some difficulty in understanding this point about impartiality. One does not ensure impartiality by insisting on experience as a housing manager or valuer. I should have thought that a retired bank manager, for instance, or a retired sanitary inspector or health inspector, would be just as capable and likely to be as impartial as a man experienced in housing. Surely insistence on experience as a valuer or house manager is also open to objection. It means narrowing the number of people from whom personnel can be drawn to provide the rent officers and man the assessment committees, which I should have thought very undesirable and contrary to the principle put forward by the noble Lord who purported to support the noble Lord, Lord Molson. He was anxious that part-time people of all sorts of occupations should be available, provided they had a suitable background, if not technical qualifications.
  Surely it is most desirable that the Minister should be able to draw his personnel, especially rent officers, from as wide a field as possible. Not only are we liable to make the legislation quite unworkable if it is limited to valuers, who are in short supply, but surely it

  1135
  would be better to use valuers on the assessment committees rather than as rent officers and so put them on a higher rung of the hierarchy. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, I suggest that the object of this Bill would be much better assured by leaving the Minister as wide a latitude as possible in the performance of a task which, from any view, would be a difficult one. If we narrow the field too much, the Minister will be in great difficulty, and it may lead to the very delays which I understand that noble Lords opposite are anxious to avoid.
  LORD ILFORD: As I have been mentioned, may I say that I fully understood the noble Lord to be referring to the appeal from the rent officer to the rent assessment committee. I was asking whether the Government contemplated that there should be any further appeal.
  9.53 p.m.
  LORD CHAMPION: I am grateful to my noble friend for coming to my assistance on this point of who should do this job, which was rightly described by the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, as "quite a job". I also agree with my noble friend that if we write these proposed words into the Bill, it will limit the Minister in the exercise of his discretion. I have tried to give the sincere opinion of the Minister on this matter, and to indicate his desire to be fair and to appoint people with sound common sense. I believe that what is required for the job of fixing a reasonable rent is common sense. There is always the opportunity to appeal to the rent assessment committee.
  I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, was not referring to an appeal from the rent officer to the assessment committee, but was asking whether there would be the right of a further appeal from the assessment committee to another body. The answer is, "No; except on a point of law." If a point of law arose, there would be the possibility of an appeal from the decision of the assessment committee, but not on the decision taken by the committee on the facts and the fixing of the rent. The committee will be the final tribunal. The intention ' is that people will not be able to set off a long trail of appeals to higher courts, until eventually they come to this House or
  1136
  somewhere else. The intention is that people should exercise their common sense about this sort of thing, in the same way as I tried to do when on a National Assistance Tribunal and appeals came to me from officers who used to work in the noble Lord's former Department. We used good common sense, and I hope that the rent assessment committees will do precisely that.
  LORD MOLSON: When I put down this Amendment, I had three points in mind. First, I was not asking the Government to go back upon what the Minister had said in another place, that he did not propose to restrict these appointments to professionals. Secondly, I wanted an assurance that it was the Government's intention that these rent officers should be fair and impartial, and should hold the balance evenly between the landlord and tenant. And, thirdly, I wanted to draw attention to the difficulty that a mere layman has in arriving at a fair rent.
  There are a number of different considerations that have to be taken into account, and a person who has had no experience in that role will find it extremely difficult to do it. That is my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, with most of whose speech I entirely agree. I think that there is a great deal to be said for not binding the hands of the Minister, provided that we have an assurance from the Government that it is intended that these rent officers shall be impartial. We have had it in words explicitly from the noble Lord, Lord Champion, which I think go somewhat further than anything that was said in another place. I am glad to know also that it is the intention, when there are people otherwise suitable, to appoint persons with experience of local government and so on, who have some knowledge of valuation. In view of the assurance that has been given by the Government, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD CHAMPION: It seems to me that this might be a convenient moment to break off this Committee stage. I think that 10 o'clock was fixed. We shall have to sit again in Committee on Thursday, when I am afraid, if necessary, we shall

  1137
  have to continue fairly late. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
  Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Champion.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS BILL
9.58 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LINDGREN): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time. It is a Bill which I take great satisfaction in moving. I think it is a measure which is generally supported. It should help to improve the climate of our industrial relations and will, I believe, make an important contribution towards the solution of some pressing economic problems with which we are faced at this time of scarce manpower and rapid technological change.
The Bill gives employees a legal right to compensation when they become redundant. This is the heart of it. And the compensation payable reflects the worker's earnings, age, and service with his employer. These basic principles have now come to be accepted as right by a wide section of opinion—in industry, in the Press and in Parliament. The main scheme of the Bill is acceptable to both the Trades Union Congress and the British Employers' Confederation. The provisions it contains are the outcome of long and careful consultations, which were in fact begun, through the Minister of Labour's National Joint Advisory Council, by the previous Government. But this consensus of opinion has come about, on the historical scale, very quickly indeed. Ten years ago it was only the exceptional employer who made financial provision for redundancy, at any rate in the case of his manual workers. It has, of course, been common practice for rather longer, in the form of the "golden handshake", for redundancies among managerial and executive staff. In this respect the Bill achieves a form of "levelling up" and helps to remove some of the disparity of treatment which still exists in industry to-day as between staff employees and the shop floor.
1138
I suggest this change of opinion has come about because though we have been able to achieve full employment, the problem of redundancy has remained with us and is likely to remain with us for the future. Since the war, large and important sectors of industry have undergone drastic reorganisation or have contracted overall as others have expanded and grown. It has happened in new industries as well as old—in aircraft as well as in cotton textiles, railways and the coal mines—and large-scale redundancy has been the result. We cannot expect that this will be a temporary phenomenon, because our economy—in these days of rapid advance in science and technology, and their application to industry—can only prosper by ready acceptance of change.
We have long ago laid the foundations on which we provide for the hardships of unemployment. But redundancy is a hazard that remains with us whether or not national unemployment is high. Hence, I think, the very proper focusing of attention on it. I think that we in this country are entitled to take some credit for having recognised this problem as one that is specially pressing to-day. This scheme is the first comprehensive statutory arrangement of its kind in a major industrial country. In voluntary provision for redundancy we are still some way behind many of our overseas competitors. Less than one quarter of the working population is covered. But this Bill will bring us abreast—and indeed put us ahead—of practice elsewhere.
The Bill recognises the fact that a worker's need for security in his job increases with his years of service. It also provides proportionately greater compensation for the older worker, whose problems, as confirmed by all recent experience of redundancy, are greater than those of his younger colleagues. It is thus a scheme which, taken by and large, provides the biggest benefits for those who are likely to suffer the biggest disruption of their working lives from redundancy and who will regard the prospect of it with the greatest anxiety. I suggest that this is in every way right. First, it is fair and just, in that those individuals who would otherwise be bearing far more than their share of the cost of economic and industrial change will receive compensation adequate by the more

1139
enlightened standards of to-day. Second, it is good sense and practical economics. These are the people who will feel most resentment and will be most likely to resist the sort of changes in industry which we have to carry through if we are to be competitive. These changes will demand more efficient deployment and use of manpower throughout industry, and the abandonment of restrictive working practices which have outlived their usefulness. This is a big challenge to industry which poses substantial human problems. We think it is one which the Bill can help us to meet.
My Lords, while we regard this Bill as important in itself, I would emphasise that it has always been conceived as one element in a wider programme. The Government have never believed that the problems of redundancy and change can be solved by one measure alone. Many others are in hand. We are carrying out a large-scale review of the National Insurance Scheme, including the problem of earnings-related unemployment benefit. This, too, will have an important part to play in influencing attitudes to redundancy. The object would be to mitigate the drastic fall in income which most workers now face if they become unemployed. But changes in unemployment benefit are not enough in themselves. In the Government's view, compensation for redundancy is an essential complement which is justified on its own merits. Changes in unemployment benefit, for instance, will not affect the position of redundant workers who go straight into another job without intervening unemployment. But such workers may still suffer substantial loss of security—reduced rights to fringe benefits, loss of seniority and perhaps future earnings, i and the knowledge that they may be first in the queue for the next redundancy.
We think action is needed both on un-employment benefit and on redundancy compensation. We have, however, not felt it right to delay the latter until we have completed our examination of the complex problems of unemployment benefit—which cannot be considered in isolation from other elements in the National Insurance Scheme. Our measures to improve and extend industrial training, the substantial increases announced in grants and allowances for
1140
workers moving to other areas, and the better and more up-to-date employment services we plan to provide are further elements of our programme. I would suggest to your Lordships that, seen in this setting, the redundancy scheme of this Bill is a sensible and necessary part of the whole plan. I hope employers and unions will not regard this Bill as doing all that is wanted to cope with redundancy. There will still be as much need as ever for intelligent and humane handling of redundancy which can be just as important—if not more so—than financial compensation. We still need improvements on such matters as consultation in advance with workers and their representatives giving long advance warning and establishing clear principles governing the order of dismissals. These have always been cardinal points of a good redundancy policy.
My Lords, I had prepared a detailed journey of explanation through the major clauses of the Bill. However, in view of the time, I do not propose to use this unless pressed to do so. I have my notes here, and should there be any particular point any of your Lordships wish to raise, I shall be only too happy to deal with it. This is a complex and important measure, and one to which the Government have given the high priority they feel it deserves. Although there is a considerable administrative machine to be set up, and a substantial amount of subordinate legislation to be passed after it is enacted, we hope that the scheme can be operating before the end of the year. We accept the need to see that before then it is properly publicised and that industry is given proper guidance on the interpretation of the many detailed provisions of the Bill. But we believe that the scheme is in general well-conceived and will be favourably received. I commend the Bill to your Lordships as a major addition to the body of our social and industrial legislation. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lindgren.)
10.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT FALKLAND: My Lords, although the hour is late, I should like to take up a very few minutes of your Lordships' time. I cannot declare any vested interest in this Bill, but I live on the edge of an important industrial neighbourhood, important particularly from

1141
the export point of view. I have heard this Bill discussed outside this House by so many people that, in spite of my inexperience, I have decided to risk saying a few words on it, and as this is only the second time that I have spoken in your Lordships' House I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, will be lenient with me in his reply if I make heavy weather of what I want to say.
I am sure we all agree that the principle behind redundancy payments, to minimise the hardships owing to loss of employment, is just and fair, and I find it disappointing that I cannot entirely support the Bill because of what I think are certain defects in detail. There seem to be three aspects to these redundancy payments: first, compensatory payments in respect of long service and the expectations that arise from it; secondly, payments for the immediate financial loss that may arise from a period of unemployment, and, finally, possible expense incurred through a residential change to a district with improved employment prospects. Surely, taking the last two points, these could be compensatory and strictly related to the loss involved, since remaining in an area of less opportunity would be likely to incur a longer period of unemployment, whereas moving to an area of higher labour demand would incur the cost of disturbance but early re-employment. If I am right here, compensation on redundancy requires calculation, not only on the basis of length of service, but additionally on a payment for loss of employment after the required service period, irrespective of the total length of service.
Having, I hope, established this point, I would go further and suggest that the payment for loss of employment and the immediate expenses arising therefrom should be withheld if in fact no financial loss is involved. It does not follow that a worker who is made redundant is necessarily in an area of low employment, or that to obtain employment he must move to another area—and if part of the redundancy payment is to cover these specific factors it must surely be restricted to the cases where these factors apply. We are told that one of the main purposes for which this Bill is designed is to increase the mobility of labour and so increase the utilisation of the limited manpower at our disposal. I cannot see
1142
that payment of a sum designed to encourage movement of labour will do so if it is paid whether or not movement takes place. Indeed, I strongly suspect that, with the unrestricted payment of a lump sum, it is human nature to extract the greatest immediate personal benefit by avoiding the expense of movement, in which case mobility of labour is discouraged by this Bill rather than encouraged. Therefore I feel strongly, in the circumstances which I have briefly outlined, that there is every justification for partial exclusion from the redundancy payment, whereas Clause 2 of the Bill as it now stands admits total exclusions only.
Another aspect of the Bill—and to me the most worrying feature—is what can be termed the legalisation of strikes of any kind by Amendment of the Contracts of Employment Act 1963. I use the word "legalisation" intentionally, because the only interpretation that the public can place on Clause 37 of the Bill is that the Government endorse, and indeed support, strikes. The Minister of Labour has suggested in justification of Clause 37 that the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Organisations will include the question of strikes in their investigations, and that he would hesitate to lay before the House any proposals for fresh legislation to deal with any aspect of the problem of strikes in advance of the Royal Commission's Report. Surely, therefore, the Amendment to the Contracts of Employment Act 1963 should also be deferred until the Royal Commission's Report, which will at least help to discourage irresponsible action during this interim period.
I have personal knowledge of strike action in the industry centred near my home, where only last year it appeared obvious to me that a minority of workers ignored the advice of their trade union and employer and took unofficial strike action, in direct breach of their contracts and with complete indifference to the financial loss to their employers, colleagues and, indeed, the national economy. Yet, under this Bill they would receive almost equal compensation with others in industry who remained loyal to their employer and trade union, had redundancy resulted from their irresponsible attitude. Indeed, the distinction is so slight as to be virtually non-existent. It

1143
is a strange paradox that proposed legislation designed to improve the industrial relations position in industry in this country as a whole should include within its provisions encouraging features to those few who have anything but the improvement of such relations at heart, and I can only hope that as the Bill passes through the Committee stage of this House the fullest possible regard will be paid to this point.
10.15 p.m.
LORD MCCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: My Lords, I wonder if I might intervene, even at this late hour, to make just one or two remarks about this Bill. First of all, we employers are grateful to the Government for the very great care with which the Minister of Labour has discussed the details of this measure with the representatives of the employers and the trade unions, and from that point of view I think the Bill is to be welcomed, although there are a number of things in it I would rather have altered. Having said that, I still have strong objection to the way this Bill has come ahead of the other Bill about which the Minister spoke.
The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, referred to the unemployment insurance reorganisation, and I am one who regards that as of much more importance than redundancy. I believe that to improve unemployment pay in the first few months of unemployment, to introduce some form of earnings rate of unemployment pay, is of much more value to the man who loses his job and is unfortunate enough not to fall into another one straight away. The loss of earnings, week after week, is not really covered in cases of this sort by a £100 or £200 redundancy payment. I believe that it would be much more valuable to the man if the order of precedence of bringing in these Bills had been changed, and we had had first the National Insurance Bill. If we had first dealt with this
1144
unemployment benefit problem we could have had, I believe, a very much simpler and less complicated, and possibly less expensive, redundancy Bill.
I would make one other point which I believe is of great importance. The operation of this Bill is to start on the appointed day. But as soon as the Bill becomes law, and even in advance of the Bill becoming law, those who may become redundant will naturally wish to claim their redundancy monies. They will not understand why they are not legally entitled to redundancy money as soon as the Bill has received the Royal Assent; and much industrial unrest will ensue if they cannot get it and there is long delay. The employer, however, cannot be expected to pay out the redundancy money stipulated in this Bill until he is able to claim back his dues from the levy and the fund, partly to recompense him for the monies paid out.
So I would strongly urge, in the cause of industrial peace, that the appointed day should be at the first opportunity, within a very few weeks of the passing of the Bill. The noble Lord mentioned that he hoped it would be by the end of the year. I hope that he manages that, and improves on it, because I believe that much of the good will that this Bill is designed to engender may disappear if we have some increase in unemployment in the autumn, more redundancy than we have seen in the past, and yet these men cannot claim the redundancy pay which would otherwise be due to them because the appointed day had not been fixed. I am glad to see that in Clause 35 powers are being taken to borrow money to set up the fund in advance of the collection of the 5d. stamp. Really nothing stands in the way except the setting up of the machinery before this Bill, when it becomes an Act, can get into operation. I hope, therefore, that there will be no delay in setting the appointed day and getting the whole scheme started.
10.20 p.m.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, before I deal with the Bill I should like to say this. Last Wednesday, during a debate on industrial disputes, I made an intervention when the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, was speaking, and I stated that Maurice Edelman was not a trade unionist. I have known Maurice Edelman for years. When I made this statement I did not know that he had been a member of the National Union of Journalists for over twenty years. In fairness to Mr. Edelman, I should like to take this first opportunity of unreservedly withdrawing my statement.
I support this Bill, because it gives employees the legal right to compensation when they become redundant, and the compensation reflects the worker's earnings, age and service with his employers. This is a great step forward, because in my time I have seen men who have served their employers for over fifty years thrown on the scrapheap with nothing but their unemployment pay to live on. There was no reward for service then. This was after they had given many years of service to their employer. I think it is fair to say that redundancy payments have now become accepted as a right by a substantial part of the community, and this policy is accepted by the T.U.C. and the employers. A few years ago it was only the exceptional employer who gave any financial assistance for redundancy to the manual worker; and I believe it was only the fact that in recent years there have been golden handshakes for redundancy among managerial and executive staffs that has created the climate for bringing in this Bill. At least this Bill achieves a recognition for the redundant worker and helps to remove the disparity of treatment which still exists in industries to-day between staff and employer.
Redundancy has been with us, and is likely to remain with us in the foreseeable future. My own industry, mining, since 1950 has contracted, and this is likely to continue. The same applies to railways and also to the cotton industry. Long ago the nation laid down the foundations upon which we provide for the hardships of unemployment. But redundancy is a problem that always remains with us, whether unemployment is high or is low.
1146
The country and the Government are therefore entitled to take great credit for having recognised the problem as one that is specially pressing. This Bill, to my knowledge, is the first comprehensive statutory arrangement of its kind in a major industrial country. In our voluntary schemes less than one-quarter of our working population is covered, and this Bill will bring us abreast, if not ahead, of many countries in the world.
A pleasing feature of the Bill recognises that a worker's security in his job increases with his years of service. As the Minister has said, it provides greater compensation for the older worker whose problems, especially if he is over 55 years of age, are greater than those of a younger man. The scheme embodied in the Bill is one which provides the biggest benefits for those who are likely to suffer the biggest disruption in their lives from redundancy, and who regard the prospect of redundancy with great worry. It is also right that those workers who will bear more than their share of the cost of economic and industrial changes will receive compensation for their loss of employment. It will help to take away the great anger that men feel, the men who would be most likely to resist the sort of changes which are needed in these days of automation if something is not done.
I hope that we can regard this Bill as one part of a greater programme. I believe that a large-scale review of the National Insurance Scheme is now in process, including the problem of unemployment benefit related to earnings. This would also play an important part in improving the attitude of men to redundancy. The great objective at which the Government should aim is to mitigate the large fall in income which workers face if they become unemployed. Again, changes in unemployment benefit will not affect the position of redundant workers who go straight to another job without any intervening unemployment, but even these workers can suffer substantial loss of security, reduced rights as to their fringe benefits and loss of seniority in earnings, with the possible knowledge that they will be the first in the queue in the next redundancy, because in many industries it is "Last come, first go". Whilst the Government know that action is needed on both unemployment benefit and redundancy compensation, I think

1147
that they are entirely right to bring forward this Bill rather than to wait for the completion of the complex problem of unemployment benefit, which cannot be considered in isolation from the other elements in our National Insurance Scheme.
I should like to deal with only one clause in the Bill before I conclude. Clause 11 of the Bill allows the Minister to exempt employers and trade unions who conclude agreements which provide for an alternative system of payments. There is a redundancy scheme in the mining industry and in other industries as well. It will be possible that some industries can pay more than that embodied in the Bill, and it is right that this flexibility should exist. I cannot see a Minister agreeing to any scheme which provides less than that which is contained in the Bill.
I note also that disputes are to be referred to tribunals consisting of a legally qualified chairman with employers and workers represented, and that they will also adjudicate on appeals against assessment to levy under the Industrial Training Act. These tribunals are like the Court of Referees under the Insurance Acts. Could I be told if the applicants to the tribunal under this Bill will have leave to appeal to an umpire, such as exists in the other tribunals under the Insurance Acts? It will be recognised that considerable experience will have to be gained, as this is an entirely new field and we ought to watch it with great interest.
I also hope that the Government will see that the scheme is widely publicised and that industry is given proper guidance on the interpretation of many of the detailed provisions of the Bill. I support the Bill as a measure long overdue to those who serve our industries and who, when redundancy becomes their lot, are not, as in the past, to be thrown on the scrap heap with no recognition at all.
10.30 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, first of all, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, for the graceful way in which he introduced this Bill. I am sure that we all excuse him for not having gone into the detail, clause by clause; the more so as on this occasion
1148
the Explanatory Memorandum is pretty full and noble Lords will have read that in detail, even if they have not been able to study what the noble Lord rightly described as a complex measure with the complete attention that is required to understand it. The noble Lord also described this as an important measure, and I noted that in another place the Minister described it as "a landmark of first importance in our industrial policy." May I make a somewhat carping observation to start with, and say that this is perhaps an odd time of night to discuss landmarks, and I do not think that it is the choice of any of us in this House that we should have to discuss this matter for the first time now.
The subject of redundancy payments has been under consideration for some time, and there has undoubtedly been growing acceptance over a period of time of the principle. Undoubtedly, everyone will agree that if, in the interests of economic progress, a man has to lose a job, which he may have held for many years, he should receive special consideration. But the acceptance of that principle does not absolve us from examining this scheme and the application of that principle. It has been argued, and it can be argued, that the question of what financial arrangements should be made in such circumstances can best be left to negotiation. This is a matter that has been pioneered by negotiation, both in private enterprise and in the public corporations, and, as so often happens, that has led to a national scheme. We accept the principle of a national scheme, and we believe that it could, and we hope that it will, improve industrial relations and help to change attitudes for the better in the course of time.
So, too, of course, would other reforms, and the first thing to consider is a point that has been referred to by several of your Lordships: which has the higher priority, in terms of social and economic betterment? I accept entirely that this Bill is part of a general plan and will fit into the developing social and economic programme, but we have to consider which should come first. We have to consider the question: will hardship be reduced more by redundancy payments or by the introduction of wage-related unemployment and sickness benefit? Will the need for mobility and

1149
economy in the use of manpower be accepted more readily by employees, when they have been in the service of the same employer for years or for weeks, if they are assured of unemployment benefit related to their current wage for so long as they remain unemployed, or if they receive a lump sum indemnity related to their length of service and their current wage?
We think that wage-related unemployment and sickness benefits are more important than redundancy payments, both to relieve hardship during the transition between one job and another, and to promote acceptance of the need for economy in the use of manpower. We should therefore have preferred to see wage-related benefits introduced before redundancy payments. That is not to say that we oppose redundancy payments—far from it. My noble friend Lord Blakenham worked very hard for their introduction, and he and my right honourable friend Mr. Godber deserve much of the credit for the whole conception of a national scheme for redundancy payments, the application of which it has fallen to the present Government to work out.
But, my Lords, it is not enough just to approve the idea of redundancy payments. Here a new statutory right is being created, and Parliament has a duty to consider what kind of scheme would be the fairest between one redundant employee and another; what kind of scheme would contribute most to social and economic betterment; and what would be the best way to pay for it. In another place, the Minister said that the purpose was to compensate the worker for loss of a job—and, of course, in some measure this is true: to compensate a worker for loss of a job through no act or omission of his own. But some of your Lordships have already questioned whether this is really compensation. As my noble friend Lord Falkland said, compensation is related to loss or damage actually sustained. The noble Lord, Lord Blyton, in, if I may say so, an extremely delightful speech, made it clear that loss and damage are involved, especially to those who have been employed for a very long time—loss of security; loss of seniority, as the noble Lord said; loss of pension rights; and the possibility that, having lost his job
1150
this time, he will lose it again because he has not been in the next one very long.
All the same, this is a scheme especially for a payment to be made in the event of redundancy, or what might be called constructive redundancy; a payment of the nature of insurance. This payment is not related in any way to the actual loss or damage sustained, in the sense that where there are two men in identical jobs who lose their jobs at the same time they may not have the same experience. One may get a new job right away; the other may be unemployed for a long time. One may have to move to another town, or even another country, whereas the other may get a job in his own town. One may get a job in his own trade, while the other may have to submit to a period of re-training. There is a strong contrast here which I think illustrates that this is not compensation, in the true sense of being related strictly to loss or damage suffered. It seems to me that, in essence, it is a mutual insurance policy, coupled with an element of deferred wages payable in the event of redundancy; payment of benefit on the occurrence of the event insured against—that is, redundancy—being supplemented by a smaller payment on the part of the employer. In fact, of course, the employer pays the lot and the mutual fund reimburses him in part, if I understand the situation correctly.
My Lords, is it right—and this is another point which I think my noble friend Lord Falkland put—that the employer should in all circumstances have to pay part? In some cases he can afford it: where, for example, greater production is to be achieved by fewer employees and at less cost. In others, he manifestly cannot: for instance, where, because of loss of demand or markets, he is forced to close down a part or the whole of his enterprise. He is asked to find the whole of these payments in the first place. He is reimbursed in part later, but he is asked to find the whole of these payments in the first place, at a time, it may be, of great financial stringency himself, and possibly at a time when he is verging on bankruptcy.
Ought not a distinction to be made between planned or voluntary dismissals and those which are forced on an

1151
employer? If the noble Lord says that it is impossible to make such a distinction, I would ask: why should the redundancy payments not fall wholly on the fund? I agree that there is something to be said, from the point of view of employer/employee relations, for the employer's making the payment. I think it can help in employer/employee relations. I also agree that it is probably more convenient and practical for him to make it at the same time as he pays off his employee. But surely it would not be impossible for the fund to pay direct, especially now that, under the Contracts of Employment Act, the period of notice is longer, which would give the fund more time to "get set to pay."
I turn from that to another aspect. It has been said that redundancy payments will reduce opposition to change and facilitate mobility of labour. That, of course, should benefit the community as a whole. That being so, why should not the community pay part, at least, of the premiums? Under the Bill there is not even to be the statutory contribution of one-quarter of the joint employer/employee contributions which the Exchequer pays to the National Insurance Fund; although, in fact, the contribution is being added to the National Insurance stamp.
These are all matters which we shall not be able to debate on Committee because, by giving the Bill a Second Reading, we shall have decided the broad framework of the Bill; but these are important matters and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to answer—
LORD LINDGREN: Not at this hour!
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this is an important Bill. It is described as a landmark. Surely we ought to have answers on matters of this importance.
LORD LINDGREN: You will not get them tonight.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord says we will not get them. We have had a long debate today; but, all the same, the noble Lord and I have debated matters far into the night on past occasions, and I do not see—
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, with respect, I must point out that the noble Lord's colleagues hardly attach the same importance to this great issue as he does himself.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sure that the country attaches importance to it, and I think it wise that we should do so, too. There are important matters which we shall have to raise on Committee. I am just going to refer briefly to these to give the noble Lord some warning about them. For example, there is Clause 2 which seems to me to make it impossible for an employer to sack a man for misconduct, except on the spot. If he gives him notice, he is liable in every case to have to prove to the tribunal that the man's dismissal was not on account of redundancy. Then, secondly there is the point of whether a strike in breach of contract should or should not be treated as a break in the continuity of employment for the purposes of both this Bill and the Contracts of Employment Act. There is a third point which the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, mentioned, the question of the appeal from the tribunals.
While we fully support the principle of a national scheme for redundancy payments, and, indeed, we ourselves started the preparatory work and carried it a long way, we regret that the Government have given it priority over wage-related benefits. Landmarks of the first importance should be set with care and circumspection so that they may withstand the ravages of time and tempest. We are sorry that this one is being rushed through your Lordships' House so late in the Session, as well as so late at night, and with so little consideration of how a good principle should be applied in practice. I hope that I have said enough to make it quite clear that we fully support this principle, although we have some doubts about its application, and we have some points to raise on Committee.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I must thank all noble Lords who have spoken this evening, for the support they have given to the Bill. I think most of your Lordships will agree that the points that have been raised are really Committee

1153
stage points. We can have a full discussion of them in Committee rather than at this late hour tonight. The only substantial point is whether wage-related benefits or the Redundancy Payments Bill should have come first. The noble Lord who has just spoken knows well that one cannot deal in any national insurance scheme with unemployment benefits alone. They are part of a series of benefits which are all related. He also knows that so far as an unemployment insurance scheme is concerned, there is a relationship between the payment of contributions and the benefit received. This scheme will include all workers, and is an additional scheme.
Is the worker who gets the sack the only one who is not to benefit? I have never heard noble Lords opposite say that a director who loses his directorship, or a managing director whose contract is cut short, should not take a "golden handshake". I think that we can deal with all these points during the Committee stage discussions, and I shall be happy to do so at that time.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  THE KESTREL AND MARITIME COMET AIRCRAFT
  THE KESTREL AND MARITIME COMET AIRCRAFT