Sitting of 14 November 1966

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

  Detention Centre, Wokingham
  Mr. van Straubenzee: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a Petition, signed by 16,228 of my constituents in the County of Berkshire, protesting most strongly against the use of the Pinewood Hospital site near Wokingham for a detention centre.
  The Petition shows that the Broadmoor institution is within one and a half miles of the site, and the Petitioners consider that it would be grossly unfair for them to be expected to endure a further establishment for the detention of persons who have committed a crime, that the site is too near a rapidly expanding residential area, that it is close to dense woodland, thus affording immediate cover to escapees, and that it would be infinitely better used for educational purposes as an extension to an existing college of education near by.
  The Petition concludes in the customary way, with the words:
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES

    The Wash Barrage
    Mr. Pymasked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources if he will make a statement about the Government's decision not to proceed with the feasibility study of The Wash barrage scheme, as recommended by the Water Resources Board.
    Mr. Eldon Griffithsasked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources why he decided not to adopt the Water Resources Board's recommendation for a feasibility study of The Wash barrage;and when the general review of regional storage schemes, as proposed in the Board's report on the South-East, will be carried out.
    Sir D. Rentonasked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources, whether he will now announce the Government's decision with regard to the prospects of building a Wash barrage.
    The Minister of Land and Natural Resources (Mr. Frederick Willey): I welcome this chance to emphasise that the Government have not yet committed themselves either for or against a feasibility study of The Wash barrage project. The question whether, and if so when, such a study should be put in hand turns on a number of factors which are still being examined. Meanwhile the Water Resources Board and the river authorities are making arrangements for

    3
    the other investigations recommended in the Board's report, and several of these are already under way.
    Mr. Pym: Be that as it may, will the Minister not admit that the Water Resources Board saw fit to advise and recommend that the feasability study should be undertaken immediately, and will he not agree that, even if he authorised the study today, the majority of the expenditure to be incurred would not arise until after the end of the period of severe restraint?
    Mr. Willey: I would accept the latter point, but the hon. Gentleman will realise—he has looked at the report—that many factors must be taken into account, and the phasing of this must also be considered.
    Mr. Griffiths: Is it not a fact that the Minister originally said that he accepted the report of the Water Resources Board? Is he not going back on this, at least in part, in saying that he will not go ahead with the feasibility study at the moment? Some of my constituents admitted surveyors to their land in the belief that he had accepted the report and would not have done so if they had realised that he would go back on part of what he said.
    Mr. Willey: No, Sir. As I said in my original reply, this is still under examination. Many factors arise from the report, and these are being considered.
    Sir D. Renton: Is the Minister aware that in its first year a feasability study is not likely to cost even as much as £100,000? Will he give a firm assurance that the Government are not closing their mind on the principle of a feasibility study?
    Mr. Willey: I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman, on his latter point, that this is still being considered. On his first point, a feasibility study is a very expensive project and I would not accept what he has said.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: What is the reason for the procrastination?
    Mr. Willey: The reason is that which I have given, that this raises many complicated issues. We are dealing with more immediate questions that have arisen from the report and are mean-
    4
    while further considering the question of the feasibility study.

    Allotments (Committee of Inquiry)
    Mr. Martenasked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources what is the purpose and estimated cost of the Committee of Inquiry into Allotments.
    Mr. Peytonasked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources when he expects to receive the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Allotments.
    Mr. Arnold Shawasked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources whether he will now make a statement on the future of allotment land.
    Mr. Willey: The Committee's task is to review general policy on allotments in the light of present-day conditions in England and Wales. The estimated cost is £25,000. The Committee's report is expected in about 18 months' time, and until this is to hand it would be premature to make a statement about future allotments policy.
    Mr. Marten: Can the Minister confirm that 29,000 of these forms and questionnaires went out, that each one contains about 300 questions, and that therefore the answers will amount to over 8½ million? What on earth will happen to them all? Could this not have been done by the well-known and well tried method of a sample? Will the Minister use a computer to get the answer?
    Mr. Willey: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's original assumptions, which are wrong. But I can assure him that we intend to use a computer for this, and that partly explains why the questionnaire takes that particular form.
    Mr. Peyton: What is the point of this great-grand daddy of all forms? Is it to compile another Domesday Book? Does the Minister realise that the clerks of many parish councils, certainly in Somerset, consider that the forms constitute a monstrous mountain of bureaucratic nonsense which has no justification?
    Mr. Willey: There is a Question later about the forms, but the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that we have received about 4,000 replies.

    Coastal Footpaths
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources (1) why he has issued instructions that new coastal footpaths should be made in North Devon where none have existed before;
    (2) on what evidence he decided that the proposed new coastal footpaths in the Hartland area would be to the convenience and enjoyment of a substantial section of the public or add to the convenience of residents in that area.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): These footpaths are required to complete the line of the Somerset and North Devon coastal footpath recommended by the National Parks Commission and approved by the Minister of Housing and Local Government as long ago as January, 1961.
    Mr. Mills: I welcome the use of these footpaths, but why is it necessary for new footpaths to be made at great cost and considerable inconvenience to many farmers in the area? What evidence is there of need for these new coastal footpaths?
    Mr. Skeffington: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, the idea of coastal footpaths has long been accepted by all parties in the House as being extremely desirable in affording public access to some of the most beautiful parts of the coastline. I think—or at least I hope—that there is no difficulty about that.
    On the first point, the hon. Gentleman will realise that, in the normal case rights of way and footpaths do no go along the coast; they have usually gone from point to point where people have passed in the normal course. For leisure purposes, on the other hand, it has been necessary to create the new footpaths. This has been outstanding for a very long time now, and I had hoped that the House would be glad that we were getting a move on with it.

    Leasehold Reform
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Minister of Land and Natural Resource whether he will now seek powers to achieve leasehold reform.
    Mr. E. Rowlandsasked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources when he intends to introduce a Bill for leasehold reform.
    Mr. Robert Daviesasked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources when he proposes to introduce a Bill to enable leaseholders to purchase the freehold of their houses.
    Mr. Willey: The Bill on leasehold reform is being prepared and will be introduced later this Session.
    Mr. Hamling: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that Crown leases and flats will be included in such legislation?
    Mr. Willey: My hon. Friend will have seen and read the White Paper.
    Mr. Rowlands: Will my right hon. Friend assure us that soon is really soon, and will he take into account the tremendous pressure which is being put upon existing leaseholders by ground landlords to try to force them to settle before the Bill becomes law?
    Mr. Willey: We shall introduce the Bill as soon as possible.
    Mr. Allason: Why the delay? This was promised in the Gracious Speech over two years ago.
    Mr. Willey: There has been no delay. We have introduced the White Paper, and since the White Paper we have been preparing the legislation.
    Mr. Graham Page: Will the right hon. Gentleman now abandon, when he produces the Bill, his previous proposal for giving away an owner's house without any compensation to the owner for the building of it?
    Mr. Willey: No, Sir; I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have no intention of departing from the White Paper.
    Mr. Luardasked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources what upper limit of rateable value he proposes to introduce as the qualification for enfranchisement in the legislation on leasehold reform he is to introduce shortly.
    Mr. Willey: I must ask my hon. Friend to await the publication of the Bill.
    Mr. Luard: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is now clear evidence that a substantial proportion of properties, notably in some areas, are above the limit formerly imposed for this purpose and that it is therefore particularly important that the limit he proposed previously should now be raised?
    Mr. Willey: My hon. Friend will be aware that we have obtained further evidence in the light of inquiries which he and some of his hon. Friends have made.
    Mr. Graham Page: What is the principle of law or morality which applies to different rateable values when legalised theft of property is being instituted?
    Mr. Willey: We are here providing a greater measure of security of tenure and are following the pattern set by the Rent Act.
    Mr. Robert Daviesasked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources the number of leasehold houses in Cambridge and the number of those with a rateable value over £200;and if he will consider increasing to more than £200 the limit of rateable value of leasehold houses to which leasehold enfranchisement will apply.
    Mr. Willey: Approximately 1,750, of which some 300 have a rateable value of more than £200. As to the second part of the Question, I must ask my hon. Friend to await the publication of the Bill.
    Mr. Davies: In thanking my right hon. Friend for that information, may I ask him to give very careful consideration to the ceiling, since a figure of £200 is wholly arbitrary and impossible to justify?
    Mr. Willey: Yes, certainly.

    Owner-Occupied Houses (Development Levy)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources how many owner-occupied houses there are in Great Britain; and how many of these together with their gardens have a development value which would subject them on disposal to levy under the Land Commission Bill.
    Mr. Willey: There are approximately 8 million owner-occupied houses in Great Britain. It is impossible to say how many of these have a development value which would be subject to levy if they were sold.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If it is impossible to say how many would be liable to development value, why did the right hon. Gentleman resist an Amendment to exempt owner-occupied houses from this levy on the ground that there were so few of them?
    Mr. Willey: I said that it is impossible to say how many. We did not make an exemption because, on the merits and justice of the case, it appeared that this development value should fall subject to the levy.
    Mr. Graham Page: But during the course of the Report stage of the Land Commission Bill—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate the Committee or Report stages of the Bill now.
    Mr. Page: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman has given a different answer from that given by his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in certain previous proceedings—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is in order for a Minister to give a different answer. It has been done.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at an early opportunity.

    Forestry Camp Sites and Amenities (Expenditure)
    Mr. Brewisasked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources what annual sum is made available to the Forestry Commission to assist in providing camp sites and other amenties for the public.
    Mr. Skeffington: No fixed amount is set aside annually, but in the forest year which ended on 30th September, 1966, the Commission spent about £60,000 on camp sites and similar amenities for the public, and 367,500 overnight visitors made use of the facilities provided.
    Mr. Brewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply, but would it not be much better if a specific grant were made to the Forestry Commission for this purpose?
    Mr. Skeffington: This is something for the House to determine in the future. Generally speaking, these accounts have been shown as for the Forestry Commission as a whole. The House should remember that the Forestry Commission's major purpose is to produce timber on a commercial scale and the matter now raised is, though important, very ancillary to the Commission's work.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Will my hon. Friend nevertheless make clear that he welcomes the work which the Forestry Commission has done in this respect and give it every possible encouragement to do more?
    Mr. Skeffington: My right hon. Friend has so expressed his view to the Forestry Commission. My hon. Friend knows that, in addition to these camps, a number of forest parks and other facilities have been established and some millions of people now regularly visit the forests for recreation.

    Retired Forestry Workers (Houses)
    Mr. Brewisasked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources to what extent the Forestry Commission provides housing for its retired employees.
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources how many Forestry Commission employees have been asked to leave their houses on retirement in the last three years.
    Mr. Skeffington: The Forestry Commission does not provide houses for retired employees. Where houses are not required for its employees, the Forestry Commission allows its retired employees to remain, as long as possible, to give them reasonable time to find other accommodation.
    During the last three years, a total of 116 employees have been asked, on retirement, to leave houses which were required for other employees. They have all been given reasonable time in which to find alternative accommodation.
    Mr. Brewis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that private landlords always provide
    10
    houses for their retired workers? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Why should the State as a landlord be a worse landlord than the private owner?
    Mr. Skeffington: As the hon. Gentleman will, perhaps, have gathered, I am not entirely satisfied of the 100 per cent. accuracy of his first observation. The Forestry Commission is extremely careful not to create hardship. It allows ex-employees to remain as long as possible. I think that its record in this matter has been quite good. If the hon. Gentleman has any example which proves the contrary, I shall be very glad to investigate it. The Commission has to carry on its business, of course, as any other producer in this field.
    Mr. Digby: But is it not hardship to ask people on retirement to go and live 20 or 30 miles away? Is it desirable that these small forest communities should have all the retired people turned out and that there should be no retired people living in the forest villages?
    Mr. Skeffington: If that were the case, it might indeed be hardship, but, as I said, the Forestry Commission has a very good record in this matter. There are at present about 170 Forestry Commission houses let to retired employees and about 51 widows or dependants of ex-employees of the Commission are now in houses which were provided by the Forestry Commission. The hon. Gentleman knows quite well what the purpose of the Forestry Commission is. Like any other similar landlord, it has to provide accommodation for those who are now currently doing its work, but, in the light of this major obligation, it tries to make accommodation available and will continue to do so.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Answers are becoming a little long.
    Mr. Manuel: Is it not the fact that, where we have these tied or semi-tied houses, the usual solution has been for the local authority in the area to build houses in the locality to meet the need?
    Mr. Skeffington: This is so, and the Forestry Commission is in touch with the local authorities in all the areas concerned.

    Public Concerns (Development Levy)
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources if he will publish a list of all those concerns in public ownership whose activities will be exempted from the payment of a development levy.
    Mr. Willey: The Bill sets out clearly which bodies are given exemptions from levy.
    Mr. Farr: Is it not grossly unfair that nationalised concerns should be put in this privileged position, especially when in many of their undertakings they are competing directly with private businesses which have, or will have, to pay full levy on their operations?
    Mr. Willey: The hon. Member will remember that we discussed this matter and that these exemptions were made purely on practical grounds.
    Mr. Lubbock: Is the Minister aware that the Bill does not set out clearly all businesses which are exempt from development levy, and that, in particular, he was extremely ambiguous about the position of housing associations?

    Land Commission (Civil Servants)
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources his most recent estimate of the total number of civil servants who will be employed in the new Land Commission; and what their annual wages bill will amount to.
    Mr. Willey: About 1,950 staff and £2½ million, respectively.
    Mr. Farr: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered what effect this terrific influx of non-productive civil servants will have on our already very delicately balanced economy? Surely he will agree that 2,000 civil servants at a high wage bill like this will have a disastrous effect.
    Mr. Willey: On the contrary, as the hon. Member will appreciate, I have taken all steps to avoid any duplication of staff.
    Mr. Graham Page: Since the right hon. Gentleman could not say on an earlier
    12
    Question how many dwellinghouse applications were likely to escape the levy, how can he estimate the number of civil servants required? How does he suddenly reduce the 2,000 of which he spoke earlier to 1,950? How has the Minister economised on this 50?
    Mr. Willey: This is our latest estimate of the staff required.

    Rivers and Canals
    Mr. Carol Johnsonasked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources what action he has taken in connection with the preparation of comprehensive plans for the future of rivers and canals envisaged in paragraphs 32 to 38 of the White Paper Leisure in the Countryside, Command Paper No. 2928;and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Skeffington: The full implementation of these proposals must largely await legislation. Meanwhile my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is carrying out consultations with the British Waterways Board, the regional economic planning councils, local authorities and other appropriate national and regional bodies to establish the facts on which comprehensive plans for the future of the nationalised inland waterways must be based. My right hon. Friend is kept fully informed of the progress of these consultations.
    Mr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is great disappointment in many quarters at the slow progress which is being made in working out a long-term and comprehensive policy for our inland waterways? To what extent was his right hon. Friend consulted about the paragraphs in the White Paper with their quite inadequate proposals for the future of the inland waterways?
    Mr. Skeffington: I assure my hon. Friend that there were adequate consultations and, indeed, that very considerable progress has been made. The fact is that there are always one or two elements which are rather late in coming in and that the picture cannot be completed until their replies have been included. More progress is being made than perhaps appears.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Will my hon. Friend keep in mind also the recommendations

    13
    of the Countryside in 1970 Conference, which paid great attention to the importance of canals and riverways for recreation purposes?
    Mr. Skeffington: Yes, indeed. My right hon. Friend has reported the very successful experiments which are being conducted on the Stratford-upon-Avon Canal. This is something which is very much engaging his attention in working out future legislation and plans.

    Enterprise Neptune
    Mr. McNamaraasked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources if he will make a statement on his discussions with the National Trust over the progress of Enterprise Neptune.
    Mr. Willey: Full and detailed discussions were held with the National Trust before the Government decided to contribute to Enterprise Neptune. I have had no further discussions, but my Department is informed of the progress of this project in the course of making disbursements of the Government contribution.
    Mr. McNamara: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he would not agree that in view of the recent publicity, which has tended to a large extent to denigrate some of the excellent work of the National Trust, it would be in the public interest to take steps to have the initial legislation amended to make the Trust more publicly responsible?
    Mr. Willey: I will consider what my hon. Friend has said, but I have no reason to concern myself with this legislation at the moment.
    Mr. Costain: Is the Minister aware that the War Office proposes to take over as a rifle range a charming piece of the Kent Coast—the Warren, Folkestone? Can the right hon. Gentleman help by stopping this erosion of Enterprise Neptune?
    Mr. Willey: I am well aware of the hon. Member's concern about his constituency. If he will get in touch with me, I will certainly look into the matter.

    Unestablished Industrial Forestry Staff
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources what percentage of the industrial
    14
    employees of the Forestry Commission are established; and whether there are any unestablished men with more than 10 years' service.
    Mr. Skeffington: Approximately 30 per cent. of the Commission's industrial staff are established. There are 1,712 unestablished industrial staff with more than 10 years' service.
    Mr. Digby: Are not these figures rather disappointing? Is not this perhaps one of the reasons for the undue turnover in the labour force of the Commission despite the fact that the wage packet is now better with increased piece-work?
    Mr. Skeffington: Without further thought, I do not altogether accept the hon. Member's assumption. The fact is that establishment does not appeal to every person in the Commission. I expect that the hon. Member knows from his experience that the terms of contract of those who are established are such that they may be sent away on work, and this does not appeal to everyone. These people get a gratuity at the end of their service even if they are unestablished, whereas if they are established their service ranks for pension rights. Any employee can at any time apply to become established. The Forestry Commission from time to time invites applications, and 300 are now being considered. There is, therefore, no bar against anybody who applies and is suitable being becoming established.
    Mr. Speaker: I hope that the Minister will note what I have said about long answers.

    National Park Centres
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources what encouragement he is giving the National Parks Commission to establish park centres in each of the national parks.
    Mr. Willey: The National Parks Commission is well aware of the need to stimulate and co-ordinate education in national park centres and of the contribution which national park centres could make. The Lake District National Park Planning Board this year acquired Brock-hole on Lake Windermere for use as a picnicking area and day centre for visitors.

    15
    The buildings will later be used as a day centre for visitors where information will be provided about the national parks, natural history and other matters covered by Section 86 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: While welcoming my right hon. Friend's Answer, may I ask whether he can do something in conjunction with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to encourage a centre of this kind in every national park?
    Mr. Willey: Certainly. I am sure that my hon. Friend will pay regard to what is being done in the Lake District, which, I hope, will set an example.

    National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949
    Mr. Murtonasked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources whether he will now reconsider his decision to defer until the next Session of Parliament the proposed legislation to amend the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949.
    Mr. Willey: No, Sir. While the Government are anxious to introduce legislation on the lines indicated in the White Paper on Leisure in the Countryside as soon as possible, a Bill could not be introduced this Session without sacrificing other important Measures.
    Mr. Murton: Is not the House entitled to believe that this is just one more case of the Government failing the country by not putting into effect their promised legislation?
    Mr. Willey: I assure the hon. Member that we have every intention of introducing this legislation as soon as possible.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Could my right hon. Friend at least assure us that a great deal of preparatory work is being done to enable legislation to get ahead as fast as possible?
    Mr. Willey: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that that is the case.

    Countryside Commission
    Mr. Murtonasked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources, upon what criteria he decided to introduce the Land
    16
    Commission Bill before the proposed legislation to set up a Countryside Commission.
    Mr. Willey: Because my right hon. Friends and I considered the former more urgent.
    Mr. Murton: Will not the Minister agree that he has a very strange sense of priorities in these matters?
    Mr. Willey: No, I would not agree, and the country shares my view.
    Mr. Graham Page: Is not this another example of where useful and desirable Government services are being cut down to bring in such doctrinaire bodies as the Land Commission, taking up all the available civil servants?
    Mr. Willey: No. The electorate showed pretty definitely what the priorities should be.
    Mr. Allason: Will the Minister tell us how he arrives at the decision that the country supports him? None of his back-benchers support him, and no professional opinion supports him.
    Mr. Willey: Public opinion does support us.

    Forests (Recreational Facilities)
    Earl of Dalkeithasked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources what legislative action he proposes to take to provide the Forestry Commission with the necessary powers to spend money on the provision of recreational facilities for the general public.
    Mr. Skeffington: My hon. Friend is considering, in the context of countryside legislation, whether it is necessary to add to the power the Commission already have.
    Earl of Dalkeith: Could the hon. Gentleman confirm whether the forestry Acts at present cover this sort of expenditure?
    Mr. Skeffington: This matter is being looked at at the present time. Some questions have been raised about it, and that is why my right hon. Friend is considering whether it is necessary to provide for this in future legislation.

  MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS

    Roofing Tiles
    Sir J. Rodgersasked the Minister of Public Building and Works to what extent the output of roofing tiles has suffered in the last three months; what are the prospects for the next six months; and what he will do to keep productivity running at a reasonable level to keep unemployment down.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works (Mr. James Boyden): In the three months ending September, production in England and Wales was 6 per cent. lower than in the previous three months. Deliveries were 7 per cent. higher.
    Sir J. Rodgers: Is the Minister aware that whilst stocks, it is true, are not quite so high, some of the larger firms in this industry are running at 70 per cent. capacity and that if the present trend continues they will be running at 50 per cent. capacity and inevitably there will be higher costs? Is that what the Minister is after?
    Mr. Boyden: The fall in production follows the normal seasonal pattern. A

    REPORTS OF DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEES OR WORKING PARTIES, 1960 TO 1966

    Title

    Date

    Subject

    Implementation and General Remarks

    Civil Defence in the Building and Civil Engineering Industries.

    1962

    Means of carrying out construction work in emergency.

    Setting-up of Emergency Construction Organisation.

    Winter Building

    1963

    Problems of building in winter and solutions available.

    Revision of Ministry's own contract specifications to provide for aids to winter building. Initiation of research and development programme. Appointment of Winter Building Adviser.

    Production of Building Components in Shipyards.

    1963

    Possible use of spare capacity in shipyards for manufacturing building components.

    Shipyard Enquiry Centres were set up to bring together potential clients and manufacturers. Some shipyards have diversified into industrialised building.

    United Kingdom Housing Mission to Canada.

    1963

    Report of a visit to Canada to study methods of constructing timber houses and their possible application in U.K.

    Three demonstration pairs of Canadian timber houses were erected in different parts of U.K.

    Building Research and Information Services.

    1964

    Examination of need for improved research and information services for building.

    A new Research and Information Association is about to be established.

    Building Regulations Advisory Committee.

    1964

    Report of a Committee set up under Public Health Act 1961.

    New standard Building Regulations were made in 1965.

    Placing and Management of Contracts for Building and Civil Engineering Work.

    1964

    Examination of current methods of placing and managing contracts and recommendations for improvements.

    Ministry is encouraging good modern practices by publishing guidance to building clients.

    lot of houses under construction are awaiting their roofs. It is quite probable that demand will follow the usual pattern an call for increased production.

    Departmental Committees (Official Reports)
    Mr. Costainasked the Minister c Public Building and Works how man official reports were produced by committees of his Department which include representatives of the building and construction industries in each of the years 1960 to 1966, inclusive; what was the subject matter of these reports; what was the cost of each; and what subsequent Government action has been taken in each case to implement their recommendation
    Mr. Boyden: Nine. As the details re-quested are rather lengthy, I will, wit permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Figures of cost are not available.
    Mr. Costain: Would the Minister answer the Question, for I do not see that he has done so? What action has he taken in these cases?
    Mr. Boyden: Very considerable action, which will be indicated in the OFFICIAL REPORT over several columns.
    Following are the details:

    Title

    Date

    Subject

    Implementation and General Remarks

    Organisation and Practices for Build-ing and Civil Engineering.

    1964

    Differences in practice between Scotland and England and Wales and recommendations for greater efficiency.

    Action in hand on recommendations about training, selective tendering, revision of contract conditions and adoption of standard method of measurement. Efforts are continuing to improve contractual practices (particularly methods of payment) and to increase production of building materials in Scotland.

    Assessment of New Building Products.

    1965

    Possible application in this country of French Agrément system of assessing and certifying building innovations.

    An independent body, the Agrément Board has been set up and is now functioning.

  MINISTRY OF SOCIAL SECURITY

    National Assistance (Wage Standstill)
    Mr. Winnickasked the Minister of Social Security how many people in 1964, 1965, and so far in 1966, received less National Assistance than that to which they were entitled due to the fact that they were affected by the wage standstill regulation.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Norman Pentland): At the end of September 1966, 12,817 unemployed persons were affected in this way. The figures for September 1965 and 1964 were 14,839 and 13,127, respectively.
    Mr. Winnick: Does this not prove the suffering, especially to children, caused by this regulation? May I ask the Minister whether it is not time we did away with this penalising of the poor, under what is basically a Tory regulation?
    Mr. Pentland: I take my hon. Friend's point, but, as he will know, the Government are looking into this question of the wage stop very carefully, and into the whole question of poverty among the families of the lower wage earners.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Does this helpful Question from the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend not bring out again the contrast between those previous pronouncements by the party opposite and present performance?
    Mr. Pentland: No, not at all. The whole record is there for all to see. What we are doing is something which has never been done before under the previous Administration. We are looking into this matter and into the regulations, and into the whole question of the poverty of families of the lower wage earners.
    Mr. Donnelly: I ask my hon. Friend to forgive my ignorance, but can he explain to me why they do not receive this money?
    Mr. Pentland: I am sorry, I did not quite catch that.
    Mr. Donnelly: Why do they not receive it?
    Mr. Pentland: Because it is a principle that no one can receive more social security supplementary benefit than he receives in wages.

    Retirement Pensions and Social Security Supplement
    Mr. Winnickasked the Minister of Social Security how long it will be before there will be one single book that will cover both a person's retirement pension and social security supplement.
    The Minister of Social Security (Miss Margaret Herbison): We must give first priority to clearing the very large number of claims to the new supplementary pension which I am happy to say my Department is receiving. Subject to this, I hope to start a pilot scheme for combined payments in the New Year.

    Pensions (Value)
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Minister of Social Security to what extent the real value of pensions are falling due to rising prices; and what steps she is taking to offset any reduction in pensions.
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Minister of Social Security by how much she estimates the retirement pension of 80s. per week has fallen in real value since it was granted on 29th March, 1965.
    Mr. Pentland: At current prices, the single pension of 80s. is worth about 5s. 3d. less than in March, 1965, and

    21
    the 130s. rate for a couple 8s. 6d. less. Even when account has been taken of rises in prices, however, the value of the present rates of pension is appreciably greater in real terms than that of any previous rates.
    Mr. Roberts: While I thank the Minister for the very favourable conditions now compared with those under previous Administrations, is he aware that the expenditure pattern generally does not apply to this group and that, in fact, if the proposed increase in the price of bread which has been threatened comes about, this group will suffer still further?
    Mr. Pentland: Yes, Sir. I appreciate that, but in fact the retail price index stood at 116·6 in July, it rose to 117·3 in August, but fell in September to 117·1. Therefore, the rise since July has been less than half of 1 per cent.
    Mr. Frederic Harris: If, in the Minister's own words, the pensions have reduced by some 6 per cent. or a little more in a year and a half, what action do the Government intend to take to restore the ground?
    Mr. Pentland: Of course, we are concerned about the decrease in the value of the pension, but, whatever anyone may think about the adequacy of the pension rate, it is nevertheless a fact that the pension is still standing at a higher rate in real terms than at any other time previously.
    Mr. Worsley: Has the hon. Gentleman made any estimate of the future fall in the value of pensions which will certainly come about as a result of the introduction of the Selective Employment Tax?
    Mr. Pentland: Questions about the increases arising from the Selective Employment Tax have already been answered by my right hon. Friend on previous occasions. I am saying that since July, when the Government took the meaures to increase postal charges and so forth, there has been an increase of only half of 1 per cent. in the retail price index.

    Unemployment Benefit (Night Workers)
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Minister of Social Security if she is aware that under short-time working
    22
    conditions the system of paying unemployment benefits on a day's unemployed basis worked to the disadvantage of night workers in many industries where their normal week was usually condensed into five shifts as compared with the six-shift week of day workers with the same total hours; and if she will take steps to offset this disadvantage.
    Miss Herbison: The shortest period of unemployment for which unemployment benefit is provided consists of two days occurring within a week. Whether a worker on short time can qualify for benefit therefore depends upon the incidence of the days when he is off work; but the rules apply equally to day workers and night workers.
    Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister aware that there is very real concern about this in some industries which are affected by short-time working, like Vauxhall Motors at Luton? Does she not feel that at the present time an hourly basis could be used to replace the present daily basis, because in any case the figures of entitlement for unemployment benefit are calculated now by computer?
    Miss Herbison: I would only say that sufficient difficulties arise when we calculate it on a daily basis without turning over to calculating it on an hourly basis. My hon. Friend will be aware that in the Act passed earlier this year, we have set down a date in 1969 when no unemployment benefit will be paid for short-time working, since we believe that it is the responsibility of industry to take care of its workers during periods of short-time working.

    South Shields (National Assistance)
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Social Security how many were in receipt of National Assistance benefit in South Shields at the latest available date; how many of these were unemployed or on sickness benefit; and in how many of these cases the National Assistance benefit is reduced by the wage stop procedure.
    Mr. Pentland: Because of the detail necessarily involved, I will, with permission, circulate the reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Does my hon. Friend realise that there is growing anxiety

    23
    about this position all over the country? While recognising that inquiries are being made, will he do his best to speed up a solution to the problem?
    Mr. Pentland: Yes, Sir. As I said previously, we are fully aware of the problem.
    Following is the reply:

    THE FOLLOWING TABLE SHOWS THE POSITION AT 27TH SEPTEMBER, 1966, THE LATEST DATE FOR WHICH FIGURES CAN BE GIVEN FOR PERSONS RECEIVING SICKNESS BENEFIT OR AFFECTED BY THE WAGE STOP

    National Assistance allowances in payment to:

    All weekly National Assistance

    Unemployed Persons

    Persons receiving Sickness Benefit

    allowances in payment

    Total

    Wage Stop

    Total

    Wage Stop(2)

    7,418

    578

    38

    610

    5

    1. The former South Shields Area Office or the National Assistance Board serves the County Borough of South Shields, and also about one-third of the Borough of Jarrow.

    2. In addition to the 610 persons receiving national assistance in supplementation of sickness benefit on 27th September there were 492 sick or disabled persons who were not in receipt of insurance benefit. It is not known whether any of the five temporarily sick persons affected by the wage stop had no sickness benefit.

    3. Some of the allowances provided for the needs of more than one person, e.g., man and wife.

    4. At 25th October, 1966 there was a total of 7,553 weekly national assistance allowances in payment of which 655 were received by unemployed persons.

    Mr. and Mrs. Dan Brooks (Payments)
    Sir C. Taylorasked the Minister of Social Security why the National Assistance Board agreed to pay bed and breakfast bills of up to £31 a week to Mr. and Mrs. Dan Brooks, of no fixed address, in August, 1966;and whether this was an isolated instance or is common practice.
    Mr. Pentland: The weekly amount of the payments, which were made in June and July, was much less than £31. This was an unusual case calling for special treatment.
    Sir C. Taylor: Can the hon. Gentleman say why it was that a solicitor in a magistrates' court said that they had been paid £31 during the week while they moved from boarding house to boarding house? Why was that done and, if the amount is disputed, how much was paid?
    Mr. Pentland: As I say, that was inaccurate.
    Hon. Members: How much was it?
    Mr. Pentland: I am going to give the accurate figures now. The true facts are these. In the week in question, £24 1s. 6d. was paid, but that was to cover needs for 10 days, not a week. In the seven-week period, a total of £110 2s. 6d. was paid, including lump sum exceptional needs grants totalling £6 8s. 6d., and one of those was for fares to visit the couple's daughter in a local authority home. The average weekly payment for their ordinary needs was, therefore, £14 14s. The alleged payment of £9 5s. 6d. which was also made was actually £1 18s. 6d. As I have said, it was an unusual case. If the hon. Gentleman would like a full explanation of the case, I will gladly write to him.
    Mr. Freeson: Would my hon. Friend not agree that it is quite appalling for a Member of this House to bring out this kind of confidential information by way of Question and Answer instead of dealing with it by correspondence—[Interruption.]
    Sir C. Taylor: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a point of order. It is a point of criticism.
    Sir C. Taylor: On that criticism, may I draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the fact that I am merely quoting from a report in the Daily Telegraph of 26th August, which has not been disputed by the National Assistance Board?
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not an old rule of the House that an hon. Member who asks a Question of a Minister himself takes responsibility for the facts?
    Mr. Speaker: That is an accurate statement of the rule. The hon. Gentleman did, however, accept responsibility.

    Personal Case
    Commander Purseyasked the Minister of Social Security (1) why the widow of a naval rating, whose name has been forwarded to her by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East, and whose husband died while serving in Malaya, has been given only negative

    25
    information about her allowances by her Department during the two months since she was flown from Malaya, in particular that she is not entitled to family allowances because she has not been present in Great Britain for at least 26 weeks out of the past 12 months;
    (2) why no welfare officer from her Department has visited the widow of a naval rating, whose name has been forwarded to her by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East, and whose husband died while serving in Malaya, during the two months since she was flown home from Malaya, with her three infant children;and why no positive information has been given to her as to her widow's and children's allowances.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Harold Davies): A claim to war widow's pension from my Department was initially rejected on the ground that the off-duty accident which caused the husband's death was unrelated to his naval service;this decision is now being reconsidered following my hon. Friend's representations. A welfare officer from my Department has now visited the widow, who has already had help from the Forces welfare services.
    Family allowances are not yet payable under the ordinary provisions in this case, but special family allowances are in payment by the Service Department at the same rate. The position was explained to the widow in a letter on 10th October. She is now receiving, in addition to the Service Department benefits and allowances, the appropriate national insurance widow's benefit.
    I shall be writing to my hon. and gallant Friend about the case.
    Commander Pursey: May I ask the Minister why, when this rating's widow's application for a war widow's pension was rejected, she was not informed what to do in order to obtain a Ministry widow's pension and children's allowance, instead of being kept in suspense after the tragic death of her husband, travel ling home by air from Malaya with three young children, and simply being put on a train and discarded by the Admiralty? As regards the second Question—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am very sympathetic to the case, but it must be put briefly.
    Commander Pursey: I am dealing with two Questions, if I may, briefly. Why did not the welfare officer visit this rating's widow shortly after her return from Malaya and inform her what her income would be from 1st November, which is only now a fortnight ago, instead of this widow not knowing what she was going to get after that date?
    Mr. Davies: We all admire my hon. Friend's tenacity in trying to get justice for Service people. With all due deference to his knowledge, his facts are not correct. As soon as the lady arrived from Singapore, she was accompanied to her home by a Service Department welfare officer. She informed the lady of the procedure which should be taken, our Ministry ultimately followed it up and, as from today, the lady will receive over £50 arrears of allowances for her family. Because of my hon. Friend's part in this, we are looking at the case once again to see whether, as a consequence of this man's tragic death, which was the result of an accident at home—he was putting a light in a table lamp when he received a fatal electric shock—his widow can qualify for a war pension.

  PAYMASTER-GENERAL

    Home Information Services
    Mr. Onslowasked the Paymaster General if he will publish a White Paper on the co-ordination of home information services.
    The Paymaster-General (Mr. George Wigg): No, Sir.
    Mr. Onslow: May I ask the Paymaster-General whether he is aware that the nature of his activities causes a great deal of concern, and can he now give one good reason why he should be excluded from investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner?
    Mr. Wigg: I am not aware that that supplementary arises out of the original Question.
    Mr. A. Royleasked the Paymaster-General what arrangements have been initiated since October, 1964 for improving the co-ordination of the home information services.
    Mr. Wigg: None, Sir.
    Mr. Royle: Why not?
    Mr. Wigg: Apparently the hon. Gentleman could not have been here for the previous week's performance, nor could be have read HANSARD. I only answer Questions about the information services. I am not responsible for policy. That has been made clear by the Prime Minister. I have tried to make it clear. I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that if he will read HANSARD he may appreciate the point.
    Sir J. Rodgers: Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply mean that he thinks there is absolutely no chance for betterment whatever in co-ordination of the information services?
    Mr. Wigg: It just means this, that under the previous Administration there were two Ministers paid from public funds performing party work—Conservative Party work—and the Prime Minister specifically repudiated as an act of policy that this Administration should do anything as corrupt as that.
    Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order. Is it Parliamentary language—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—to accuse Members of corruption?
    Mr. Speaker: Such charges made against an individual would be not in order, but there are charges against individual Members which would not be in order but which can be made against a Government. Things like that have often been said.
    Mr. Wigg: It was on that latter note that my answer was made.
    Mr. Martenasked the Paymaster-General what proposals he has for the improvement of the co-ordination of home information services; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Wigg: None, Sir.
    Mr. Marten: If the Minister seriously has no proposals for improving the coordination of home information services, does he think that possibly there is room for some improvement about the Answers to Questions for which he is answerable in Parliament? Would not an improvement be started if he were to withdraw—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—the remark he made last year that he hates the guts of Tories?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot hold an inquest on last year.
    Mr. Wigg: In view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I will not say what I was going to say in reply to the latter part of that question. As regards the first part, I will again try to point out to the hon. Gentleman, not with much hope of success, that I am not responsible for producing proposals; I am responsible for answering Questions about the information services. Therefore, I can reply only in terms of matters for which I am responsible.
    Mr. Hogg: Is it not obvious that the right hon. Gentleman has no useful or honourable work at all?
    Mr. Wigg: I am carrying out the same sort of job as was done under previous Administrations. I could not have done it any worse than it was done in the past, however hard I tried. As for my duties in connection with co-ordination, I would suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that at least from time to time we have produced some evidence, which he can read, if he cannot understand; but if he will read Answers to previous Questions he will see that this Administration do have Ministers for coordination of home services: it is Departmental practice, Departmental responsibility, and it is known to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. It was a corrupt operation of the previous Administration to have two Ministers paid from public funds doing a party job.
    Sir C. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he might learn a great deal if he tapped my telephone?
    Mr. Wigg: At least I should have thought that question out of order.
    Mr. Speaker: It is quite clearly not relevant.
    Mr. A. Royle: May I ask your advice, Mr. Speaker? In view of the fact that the Paymaster-General is apparently unwilling to answer Questions in the House, would it be possible under the rules of order for us to ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee to invite the Paymaster-General to give evidence to the Public Accounts Committee on the work he has done in the Government?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order, and the hon. Member knows that it is not a point of order.
    Sir Knox Cunningham—
    Mr. Speaker: I am not going to waste Question Time on false points of order.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order. You called me, Mr. Speaker, to put a Question. Does that still hold good?
    Mr. Speaker: Apparently not.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise the matter at an early moment.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH

    Doctors' Wives (Payment)
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Minister of Health whether he will now seek to pay allowances, such as are paid to office staff, for wives who assist doctors in their duties at home.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): No, Sir. The help given by family doctors' wives has been taken into account in assessing the remuneration of the doctors themselves. It would therefore be inappropriate to make any additional payment.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the greatly increased difficulties of doctors' wives since the S.E.T. was brought in? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he saw fit to make representations to the Chancellor he would have the support of every warm-hearted Member in the House?
    Mr. Robinson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the possibility of including doctors' wives in the scheme for direct payments was very carefully considered during the discussions which I had with representatives of the profession, but both they and I reluctantly had to accept that this could not be achieved without controls, which neither the Government nor the majority of doctors would want.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the maintenance of the general practitioner service
    30
    in this country, particularly in many of our rural areas, in recent years has depended largely on the devoted and mainly unpaid work put in by family doctors? In view of this, will he give as sympathetic as possible consideration to their position?
    Mr. Robinson: I do not know whether my hon. Friend meant the wives of family doctors. I suspect that he did.
    Dr. Dunwoody: Yes, I did.
    Mr. Robinson: I am aware of the great contribution that many, perhaps most, doctors' wives make to their husbands' practice and indirectly to the National Health Service, but for the first time the review body has specifically made it clear, in assessing the remuneration of general practitioners, it has taken into account this contribution made by wives.

    Methylated Spirit Drinkers
    Mr. Hiltonasked the Minister of Health whether he will initiate an investigation into the social problems arising in those areas, such as the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, where there is a concentration of methylated spirit drinkers, with a view to bringing national resources to bear in helping to rehabilitate these people.
    Mr. K. Robinson: The rehabilitation of crude spirit drinkers depends on their co-operation, which is difficult to obtain; but, in conjunction with my right hon. Friends, I am reviewing the problem.
    Mr. Hilton: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that concentrations of methylated spirit drinkers in the East End of London lead to grave social consequences not only for the residents but also for the drinkers? All that I am asking is for an investigation into the problem to see what the Government can do to help. Is not this a reasonable proposition to put to my right hon. Friend?
    Mr. Robinson: I had hoped that my Answer to my hon. Friend showed that we were investigating the problem. A survey by the London County Council estimated that there were between 150 and 200 of these crude spirit drinkers in London, but we have not got any more up-to-date figures. The problem areas are

    31
    mainly Stepney, Southwark and the City of London.
    Mr. Doughty: Is it not a fact that many Government and other authorities have inquired into this difficult problem over a long period and that the short answer is that there is virtually no means of rehabilitating people who have sunk to this depth?
    Mr. Robinson: I would not like to be quite so defeatist as that. There are several Departments concerned in this, and the National Assistance Board has conducted a survey of the users of reception centres, common lodging houses and other places where single homeless people, including people of this kind, tend to congregate, and I await the results of the survey which is to be published shortly.

    Lung Cancer
    Mr. Pavittasked the Minister of Health (1) what was the average number of deaths per day for each of the past three years from lung cancer;
    (2) how many men between the ages of 45 and 64 years died of lung cancer in 1965.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health (Mr. Charles Loughlin): In England and Wales, the average number of deaths per day was 66·9 in 1963, 69·3 in 1964 and 72·3 in 1965. In 1965 there were 10,655 deaths of men aged 45–64.
    Mr. Pavitt: As there are now four times as many deaths from lung cancer as from road accidents, will my right hon. Friend look again at the whole problem of T.V. advertising with a view to preventing the advertising of the smoking habit through cigars, not cigarettes, and the possibility of taking time to discourage young people from adopting the habit?
    Mr. Loughlin: There is on the Order Paper a later Question about T.V. advertising. On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I think that most hon. Members will be very gratified to know that there has been a substantial—I want to choose my words carefully—increase of non-smokers amongst our younger people, and we hope that other youngsters will take note of this and not smoke.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Owing to the rapid acceleration in the number of deaths from lung cancer, will the hon. Gentleman also look carefully again at the problem of diesel fumes from motor vehicles, and other causes?
    Mr. Loughlin: It may well be that diesel fumes are a contributing factor—I would not like to express an opinion—but what we are dealing with in this sense largely is cigarette smoking, and we think that cigarette smoking is the largest single factor in causing cancer of this kind.
    Mr. Hogg: It may well be that air pollution, though not diesel fumes, is an important contributory cause, but has it not been established over and over again that the largest cause of lung cancer at the moment is cigarette smoking?
    Mr. Loughlin: That is precisely the point which I wanted to underline in reply to the supplementary question from the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke).

  HOSPITALS

    Mental Patients (Tower Hamlets)
    Mr. Hiltonasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the admission rate to mental hospitals within the London Borough of Tower Hamlets is 77 per cent. above the national average, and that this places a considerable strain on the resources of the local authority; and whether he will arrange for a special grant to be made.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I am aware that the rate is above the national average, but this is not necessarily a measure of the demand for local authority mental health services. I have no power to make a special grant to the Council.
    Mr. Hilton: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that if admissions to mental hospitals are 77 per cent. above the national average, this means that a very much greater proportion of the mental after-care work has to be borne out of local rate funds? It is unfair on a borough, with perhaps a smaller rate fund than others, if it has to tackle this problem. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether a special grant should be made in these cases.
    Mr. Robinson: I have no powers to make a special grant. I do not accept my hon. Friend's figures. My information is that the admission rate is about 40 per cent. above the national average. I would point out to my hon. Friend that the Tower Hamlets Council is doing very well in this respect. Its expenditure per capita on mental health services is about 10 per cent. higher than the average for the country, and about 20 per cent. higher than the average for the London boroughs.
    Mr. Hilton: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of my right hon. Friend's reply, I give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Hospital Staffs (Vacancies)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Health if he will take steps to ascertain the vacancies in each grade of staff in hospitals situated within the Greater London area, and as to whether the number of these is increasing or decreasing.
    Mr. K. Robinson: No, Sir. As staffing needs are determined locally and establishments are not fixed centrally I do not think it would be profitable to collect figures of vacancies in the statistical returns.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: How can the right hon. Gentleman satisfy himself that the rates of remuneration are adequate to maintain the staff at these hospitals if he does not even know how far they are able to fill their establishments?
    Mr. Robinson: I have already explained that establishments are not centrally fixed, and are not subject to any particular standards. The right hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the only figures for vacancies which were ever regularly collected by the Ministry of Health were for nurses, and that this practice was stopped in 1952 just after the right hon. Gentleman and his party became the Government.
    Mr. Braine: Is it not a fact that there are now quite serious shortages in most categories of medical auxiliary staff? This has been the subject of representations by various staff associations. Does it not make sense to accept my right hon.
    34
    Friend's advice, and at least try to find the reason why?
    Mr. Robinson: I do not accept that figures for vacancies are necessarily an accurate yardstick for demand. There are shortages in certain of the auxiliary categories, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that in almost every case these shortages are less than they were when the party opposite was last in power.

    Motor Accident Cases (Charges)
    Mr. Whitakerasked the Minister of Health whether, as soon as economic circumstances allow, he will introduce legislation to end the charges made by hospitals to the victims of motoring accidents.
    Mr. K. Robinson: The charges are made not to patients as such, but to vehicle users or their insurers, but I will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.
    Mr. Whitaker: Is not this practice adding insult to injury, and is it not a complete anomaly in the National Health Service?
    Mr. Robinson: The abolition of these charges would result in a loss to the hospital services of about £600,000 a year at present and there may be other more pressing candidates for the funds available. These charges arise under Sections 212 and 213 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, and, as my hon. Friend suggests, it would require legislation to change the position.
    Mr. Doughty: Is it not a fact that any abolition of these charges would increase the cost of the National Health Service, as they are now paid by insurance companies and others?
    Mr. Robinson: That is a fact. That is what I said in my previous answer.

ISRAEL AND JORDAN
Mr. Winnick Mr. Winnick (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action Britain intends to take at the United Nations over the armed clashes between Israel and some Arab States in view of the raids which took place on

35
Sunday 13th November; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mrs. Eirene White): Her Majesty's Government must await the report of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation before passing any final judgment on the incidents of the past few days near the Israel/Jordan armistice line, or deciding what further action may be necessary at the United Nations or elsewhere. But on the basis of information put out by the Israel Government, they must express their regret that the Israel Government should have responded in the way they have to the terrorist incident inside Israel on 12th November.
In the recent Security Council debate Her Majesty's Government made clear their disapproval of terrorist attacks inside Israel. They deplore the unnecessary loss of life both in the mine explosion and the subsequent military action. We hope that both sides will exercise restraint and will co-operate with the peace-keeping operations of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation.
Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us would like to see agreement reached between the great Powers for some kind of armed control in the Middle East? Is there any chance of this being achieved? Is she further aware that many of us who opposed what Israel did in 1956 are now equally opposed to the regular bandit terrorist attacks by Arab countries against Israel?
Mrs. White: My hon. Friend may be aware that there is the United Nations organisation to which I have referred on the borders between Syria and Israel and Jordan and Israel, and also the United Nations Emergency Force on the border between the United Arab Republic and Israel. Her Majesty's Government would be glad to see the strengthening of the Truce Supervision Organisation, but this depends on the parties concerned.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will the hon. Lady consider whether the time has not now come for yet another initiative to try to get a solution of the Arab refugee problem, the very existence of which should weigh very heavily on the conscience of this country?
Mrs. White: That is another and wider question.
Lord Balniel: Is the hon. Lady aware that we share the concern that is felt about the escalation of military activity in this area? Under the Tripartite Agreement we had some influence in controlling the arms balance in the area. Since this Agreement has lapsed, can the hon. Lady say whether the Government have taken any initiative to secure a major agreement between the great Powers to secure a balance of arms in this area?
Mrs. White: That does not depend on one country alone. We should be glad to see the pacification of this area, but there are other great Powers who are concerned in the area, as the hon. Member knows very well. Unfortunately, the United Nations Palestine Conciliation Commission to promote peace between the Arab States and Israel has not been as effective as one would have wished. I do not know whether it would be possible to revivify it, but I rather doubt it.
Sir A. Douglas-Home: The supplementary question put to the hon. Lady asked whether Her Majesty's Government had taken any initiative, with other great Powers, to see if there could be an arms limitation in this area. I do not think that the hon. Lady answered that question.
Mrs. White: As did our predecessors, we have continuously tried to find ways and means by which to bring stability to this very difficult area. But I need hardly remind the right hon. Gentleman of the difficulties which his Government found—and they were hardly a pacifying influence.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: Perhaps my hon. Friend has missed the point, that, if she is to take a new initiative, what previous Governments neglected to do is not an answer. Will she bear in mind that if the United States, the Soviet Union and this country could be brought to agree not to send arms at all to this very dangerous part of the world there would be a very great improvement in the situation? Is it too much to ask the Government, at this date, to try a new initiative towards that end?
Mrs. White: I am sure that we shall be glad to take any initiative which we felt might be effective.

MR. A. N. KOSYGIN (VISIT TO BRITAIN)
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would now like to make a short statement.
As the House knows from the communiqué at the end of my visit to Moscow in February, I invited the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union, Mr. A. N. Kosygin, to visit this country as the guest of Her Majesty's Government. Mr. Kosygin expressed his thanks for this invitation, which he accepted.
I am glad to be able to inform the House that it has now been agreed that Mr. Kosygin will arrive in Britain for an official visit on 6th February, 1967.
Mr. Heath: Is the Prime Minister aware that we on this side welcome the announcement which he has just made about the visit of Mr. Kosygin and the opportunities that this will provide for what we hope will be a fruitful exchange of views? May I express the hope that his programme will include not only London, but visits to other parts of the country?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The programme is being discussed. I think that we shall want to arrange the maximum amount of time for talks, but Mr. Kosygin, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, has a very deep technological interest in the kind of things that Britain can make—as I myself saw at the Trade Fair this year. On his previous visit to this country he spent most of his time touring the country looking at the great engineering centres, rather than staying in London.
Mr. Murray: Without wishing to press my right hon. Friend too much on the agenda for the meeting with Mr. Kosygin, may I ask him whether he will consider including in it Britain's relationship with the Common Market, and the future talks about it, with a view to getting a wider European grouping than that which is proposed by the Community in Europe?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend knows that I cannot outline the agenda at this stage, but on previous visits to: he Soviet Union I have discussed with
38
the Soviet leaders not only the question of Britain's possible relationship with the Common Market, but the widening of trade contacts between groupings in the West and groupings in the East.
Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the Prime Minister again take up the question of Gerald Brooke's release and point out that any gesture that the Russians could make would go a great way towards improving relations between both countries?
The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I pressed this very strongly upon Mr. Kosygin in February and on my visit in July. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be visiting Moscow before Mr. Kosygin's visit to this country, and, as he said last week, no doubt this matter will be raised then.
Mr. Frank Allaun: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement, but can he say whether it is reasonable to assume that the questions of non-proliferation and Vietnam will receive high priority in these talks?
The Prime Minister: On the experience of my two previous talks with Mr. Kosygin this year, I can certainly tell my hon. Friend that no subjects are likely to loom larger in the discussions than those two.
Mr. Hooson: I, also, welcome the news which the Prime Minister has just announced, but will he consider introducing into the talks the suggestion that there may be talks between representatives of the Warsaw Pact countries and N.A.T.O. Powers with a view to seeing whether the climate is not ripe for achieving some kind of détente?
The Prime Minister: This question has been discussed in previous meetings of this kind but it raises many difficulties. Although it is a point of view that the Soviet Government have put forward from time to time, in the last talks in which I have been involved there was more interest in bilateral talks between individual members of the Warsaw Pact and N.A.T.O., and in preparation for that both the Warsaw Pact countries and the N.A.T.O. countries have been working together on a declaration that might facilitate bilateral arrangements and agreements of that kind.

PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN (VISIT)
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a short statement.
The House will be aware that the President of Pakistan will be arriving in this country on Thursday, 17th November, to commence a Commonwealth visit. Her Majesty will meet the President at the Tate Gallery at 2.45 p.m. and the procession will then drive along the embankment past the Palace of Westminster and up Whitehall. The House of Commons will be sitting at that time and I have been concerned to ensure that the right of access to the Palace of Westminster enjoyed by Members is not interrupted.
The Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis will do everything possible to comply with the Sessional Order of this House directing him to keep the passages through the streets leading to the House free and open during the Session of Parliament. The road will be kept open for Members until the last possible moment before the procession actually passes the Palace of Westminster and be reopened as soon as the procession has passed. It is also intended to keep the footpath in front of the Palace of Westminster empty and, to assist Members, the Commissioner of Police will make available windscreen labels with directions on the reverse on the most suitable routes to be followed to the House.
Hon. Members will appreciate, however, that, while the procession is actually passing the Palace of Westminster, access may be temporarily impeded, although the Underground subway will still be available. The period during which access will be limited will be very short and any inconvenience to hon. Members will be kept to a minimum.

ADJOURNMENT
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ioan L. Evans.]

WALES (TRADE AND INDUSTRY)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes)The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes)rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will English and Scottish Members who are leaving the Chamber please do so quietly?
Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Today is Welsh day—the first occasion for Welsh affairs to be debated on the Floor of the House in the life of the present Parliament. The choice of date has coincided with the 18th birthday of Prince Charles and I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will wish me to express our warm congratulations and best wishes to him. We all look forward to his taking an increasingly close interest as Prince of Wales in the affairs of the Principality.
The debate is taking place in the shadow and under the cloud of the terrible disaster at Aberfan—a shadow that will never quite disappear. At 9.15 on the morning of Friday, 21st October, our world stopped and when it moved on again its course was somehow not the same as it had been. Indeed, after Aberfan, Wales will never be the same again. The disaster has brought into very sharp focus for all of us our general concern about Wales—the land of our fathers, and, more pointedly, perhaps, the land of our children. When our thoughts return to Aberfan, as they frequently do, we realise that there are so many lessons to be learned from the disaster.
I am not referring, of course, to lessons about the causes and circumstances of the disaster—these are matters for the Tribunal of Inquiry. I am referring rather to the wider lessons, those that it is our duty to learn as we take stock after such a shattering event.
We think, first, of coal and of the massive part that the industry has played in the economy of Wales. We think, in particular, of the state of the industry today and of its future. I know that many hon. Members are deeply concerned about the industry. But let me say at once that the Government are convinced that coal will continue to play a major rôle in the economy of Wales for as far ahead as we can see.
I do not minimise, of course, the seriousness of the problems created by the National Coal Board's programme of

41
closures. But closures are not new. For the last six years, the Board has worked to a programme of concentration and closure. The rate of closures under this programme, taken year by year, was somewhat slower than the current rate, but the indications are that, save for this year, the long-term rate of closures will be little different from previous years.
The number of men on colliery books has, of course, steadily declined, but during the last 12 months—which include the first 10 months of the accelerated closure programme—the decline has been slower than in the previous 12 months, 5,700 as against 7,500. The change has been most marked in the last six months when, in comparison with the corresponding period last year, recruitment has been better and wastage appreciably less. Indeed, in the last week for which figures are available, the number of men on colliery books in South Wales has actually increased. This must be the first time for many years that there has been an increase.
The major problem facing the industry in South Wales is the continued shortage of manpower at the efficient pits. There are about 3,000 vacancies, mostly at these efficient pits. It must be in the interests of the coal industry as a whole for these vacancies to be filled. There is no reason why any able-bodied man affected by colliery closures in South Wales who is prepared to transfer to another colliery should be unemployed. Wherever possible, the Board will seek to offer jobs to the men affected at collieries within travelling distance of their homes; but it will in any case provide generous transfer allowances, and wherever possible, alternative accommodation to men prepared to move from one area to another.
All the Government Departments concerned—Welsh Office, Board of Trade, Ministry of Labour, Ministry of Power, Department of Economic Affairs—are in-formed about closure proposals so that Ministers can be told if a proposed closure is likely substantially to increase unemployment in areas where men are already being discharged from other industries, and the coal industry is unable to offer alternative employment. But there are redundancies, and we are doing all we can to provide other work for the men who are affected.
It is not always practicable to provide alternative employment within the valleys
42
themselves, because of a shortage of suitable sites. In these circumstances, we are doing everything possible to establish the new industries within easy reach of the valleys, so as to render it unnecessary for the redundant miner to move house. In this way, we hope to be able to deal with one of the most serious social problems arising from closures.
I now want to turn to the unemployment position in Wales generally and to industrial prospects. The unemployment figures at the present time are high. The last thing I want to do is to gloss over these figures, but we should get them in the right perspective. A rate of 3½ per cent. is, admittedly, higher than any of us would want, but even this would have been regarded as Utopian within the memories of most of us. Furthermore, although the percentage is higher, there is no sign that Wales is proportionately worse off than the country generally.
For instance, between September and October, the rise in the total unemployed register for Wales was 25 per cent.; for England, it was 35 per cent. The increase in persons wholly unemployed was 15 per cent. in Wales; in England, it was 17 per cent. These figures encourage us to avoid pessimism in looking at the longer term.
During the last 20 years, diversification of employment in Wales has gone on at a tremendous rate, with the result that more of our people are at work than ever before and in a wider variety of jobs. But the fact is that we still rely greatly on extractive and basic industries and that nationalisation in these give rise to problems which need fundamental treatment.
The treatment must, in the main, consist of a broadening and deepening of Government support of new manufacturing employment. Under the Industrial Development Act, 1966, almost the whole of Wales has been included in the Welsh development area and all firms expanding or opening there will be able to seek a wide range of financial inducements.
Investment grants at the rate of 40 per cent. will be available in manufacturing, extractive and construction industries—compared with 20 per cent. elsewhere. But medium to long-term measures already taken in the past are

43
having cumulative effects which can be recognised even now. During the last three years, for example, the number of industrial development certificates approved in Wales has risen in a dramatic fashion. I should like to give the House these figures, which are of the utmost significance in the context of this debate.
In 1963, certificates were issued covering 1·6 million square feet of factory space. In 1964, the figure was 3·2 million square feet. In 1965, certificates were issued for 4·5 million square feet. But in the first 10 months of this year, certificates have been issued for 8·2 million square feet. With two months still to go before the year ends, this is already by far the highest figure reached in any post-war year.
What is even more significant is the increase in the Welsh share of the area covered by all industrial development certificates issued in Great Britain: in 1963, the Welsh share was 4·2 per cent. of the total; in 1964, it was 5·5 per cent.;and in 1965, the Welsh share was 7·3 per cent., but in the first three-quarters of this year it was 14·1 per cent. These are significant figures, showing the advance which has been made. They are very important statistics and they are the clearest possible testimony to the effectiveness of Government policy. They provide a firm foundation for confidence in looking beyond our immediate difficulties.
What is also significant is that these approvals have been spread over Wales in a most encouraging way. In the six North Wales counties, for instance, where just over 20 per cent. of the people of Wales live, certificates have been issued this year to date for nearly 1·8 million square feet—which is also just over 20 per cent. of the total.
But we recognise that there are small pockets of difficulty, and within our broad strategic approach, we recognise the need to pay special attention to these pockets of difficulty. In some localities, unemployment figures are higher than the average and have remained so for many years. It is in these areas that the Government concentrate on building advance factories to make it easier for industrialists to move in. Since October, 1964, when the last Labour Administration
44
took office, 24 advance factories have been allocated to Wales. Nine of these are under construction or completed, of which four have been taken up. The Government are pressing ahead as quickly as possible to obtain sites—where these are not already available—or to let contracts for the others. Three of these have already been allocated and extensions are required for two. All this shows how keen is the interest of industrialists in settling in the Principality.
When my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced the fourth advance factory programme two weeks ago, six factories were allocated to Wales—at Swansea, Kenfig, Bridgend, Merthyr, Maesteg and Caernarvon. In all these places the land is already owned by the Board—or is about to be acquired by the Board. The availability of land for factory building was, in fact, a material consideration in the selection of these locations for advance factories.
I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the long time it takes between the announcement of a particular factory and the commencement of building work. It is, of course, absolutely vital to avoid delay, but the major cause of delay, where it exists, is the time taken to acquire land. This is the basic problem, and it is a complex matter since it often involves the rights of private individuals. But my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is urgently examining whether it is possible to make procedural changes which will result in a speeding up of the processes of acquisition.
In the meantime, it will obviously help the Government in their programme of expanding industrial floor space if those local authorities which seek industrial development in their areas would help in making land available quickly, either for advance factories to be built by the Government or for factories which are to be built privately following the grant of an industrial development certificate. Local authorities in those areas have a very important part to play in this.
In addition to the 24 advance factories, there are three factories in Mid-Wales to be financed by the Development Commission. In all, therefore, there is a programme of 27 factories announced since

45
October, 1964, with an aggregate planned area of 405,000 square feet. This is the "planned" area;but we know from experience that, not infrequently—Merioneth and Rhondda are examples—considerable extensions are required to the planned area before building is started.
The Government will continue to pay special attention to the areas where there are these special difficulties—areas such as the valleys in South Wales, rural areas and, if I may be permitted to refer to my own constituency, Anglesey, where the unemployment rate is already above the national average. The point I want to make is that we are doing all we can to anticipate the trouble spots and to take action in advance of redundancies. This is the duty of Government.
I am very conscious of the fact that a number of hon. Members wish to take part in today's debate, and I am keen that as many as possible should be enabled to do so. Within the self-imposed time limits which I have set myself, it is clearly not possible for me to deal with the problems of particular industries and particular areas of Wales in great detail. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will deal with as many of the points raised in the debate as time will permit him to do when he winds up for the Government, if, as I hope he will, he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker.
The omission of detailed reference by me to such important industries as steel, agriculture, and forestry, oil, tourism, etc. should not, however, be taken as indicating any lack of recognition on my part, or on the Government's part, of the great importance of these industries and of the vital part they play in the Welsh economy. Nor do I ignore the significance of the other industries—many comparatively small ones—which form a part of the patchwork pattern of the economy of Wales, especially in rural areas.
I would, in passing, like to pay a warm tribute to the work of the Development Commission in helping to solve the problems of rural Wales. I also want to express my appreciation of the work of the Rural Industries Bureau, both nationally and in the counties of Wales. Its achievements in sustaining, encouraging and advising small industries in invaluable. The work of the Commission
46
and the Bureau has been of great help in Mid-Wales.
The initiative shown by the local authorities of the area some years ago when they decided to set up the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association is also to be commended. This, with financial aid from the Government, has done a great deal to draw small factories into the rural towns. The Government's recognition that more help was needed has been shown in the inclusion of all this area in the new Welsh development area, so that now, for the first time, the full range of financial inducements under the Industrial Development Act will be available to industrialists interested in Mid-Wales. Here again, the availability of suitable sites for industry is of crucial importance, as I am sure the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) agrees.
Local initiative takes other practical forms. Earlier in the year, I launched a project put forward by the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association to study the possibility of doubling the size of Rhayader. The Government are meeting the cost of this work, which will be carried out by consultants in association with the local authority and the Welsh Office, in the expectation that it will delineate the practical steps which could be taken to expand this and similar towns. I am delighted to learn that since it was launched other local authorities in Mid-Wales are exploring, on their own initiative, the possibility of doing the same thing for towns in their area. I warmly commend this spirit of self-help on the part of county councils and other local authorities in this area.
So far as the Report on the proposed new town in Mid-Wales is concerned, I am at present receiving the observations and reactions of the authorities in the area. When I have received and studied all these, I hope it will be possible for us to have a debate, possibly in the Welsh Grand Committee, on the problems of Mid-Wales in particular, when I hope to be in a position to make a statement of Government policy on the area.
It would not be proper, in a debate on industry and employment in Wales-urban Wales and rural Wales—to ignore the paramount importance of communications. Effective communications are

47
one of the principal keys to establishing the Welsh economy on an increasingly sound and more diversified basis. And good communications are needed throughout Wales. The past year has been one of notable progress for road communications to and within Wales. Let me remind the House of some of these improvements. It has seen the opening of the Severn Bridge, of the Port Talbot by-pass and of the final stage of the Heads of the Valleys road.
Some important road contracts have been let, the most recent being for the construction of dual carriageways from Mitchel Troy to Raglan, on the A40 road, as part of our programme of dualling this road as far as Newport. In North Wales, we have continued our programme of improvements on the A55 with a contract to by-pass Abergele and provide a diversion at Llandulas. Work has also begun on the Llandudno Junction fly-over.
In West Wales, I am pleased to be able to announce that I have decided to trunk the A477 road from St. Clears as far as Nash, which is a convenient distribution point for places on the south side of Milford Haven. This is a 22-mile stretch of road in Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire and has been a controversial issue for many years. It is one on which we have recently received further representations. The Government's decision to enhance the status of this road is an indication of the importance which we attach to realising the full potential of the excellent facilities which nature has given us in this part of Wales. West Wales will also gain from the improvements in communications in South-East Wales, and even from improvements outside Wales.
Mr. Desmond Donnelly: I thank my right hon. Friend for making that announcement, which is of some importance, particularly to my constituency. It is a tribute to the Welsh Office to be tackling this bottleneck. Would my right hon. Friend explain what this means in terms of money in support of the trunking procedures, so to speak?
Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. I realise the part that he has played in making representations in respect of this road.
48
I do not have the figures with me, but my hon. Friend will, I hope, be in a position to supply them when he replies to the debate.
Hon. Members will wish to know how the current financial situation has affected our road programme. Since most of Wales is a development area, we could not lightly contemplate any great cuts in the programme. Our financial ceiling for major improvements in 1967–68 has, in fact, been reduced to about £0·4 million below that originally contemplated, but I expect to be able to manage this without having deliberately to postpone any major schemes. In short, the reduction can be more or less accommodated within the margin of timing errors which are inevitable on all major schemes.
But we must look further ahead to the period after 1970. I can say that we are now well advanced in preparing the programme of schemes which we shall wish to put in hand. This programme has been discussed with the Welsh Economic Council, whose views I shall certainly take fully into account. There is a tremendous task waiting to be done on improving Welsh roads. But two factors are of over-riding importance. The first is that the total investment in Welsh roads should match the need. The need is increasing all the time; the signs are that the rate of increase is faster in Wales even than it is in England. I am, therefore, planning for a rising level of investment in our roads.
The second need is that we should get our priorities right. On this question of priorities, it is fitting to record that Aberfan illustrated in a grim fashion the urgent need to look at our urban roads. Hon. Members quite properly draw attention to the need for better roads in rural areas. I have frequently done so myself in the House over the last 16 years. But in settling our priorities, we must give close attention to the chaotic conditions that can and will be created in our towns with the massive and progressive increase in car ownership.
The economic tools at our disposal to determine the best order of priorities are becoming more sophisticated. We must ensure, however, that they give adequate weighting to future developmental needs. At the same time, it would be wrong to provide roads of too lavish a standard to cater for traffic which, even on the most

49
optimistic assumptions, will not arise for very many years to come. That would not be wise use of resources. I hope that by looking boldly at the pattern of need, and with a rising overall programme, we can provide industrialists and the private motorist with roads of which Wales can be proud.
In the context of industry and employment, sea communications are of equal importance to those on land. The future prospects of the ports of Newport, Cardiff, Barry, Swansea and Port Talbot are of the utmost importance. Following the Government's decision not to promote a third major liner terminal, the Welsh Economic Council, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, through its Port Development Panel, has carried out an urgent study of the resources of the South Wales ports and their potential for development. The panel's report is, in fact, being considered by the Council at the monthly meeting which is being held today and the Council's recommendations will be submitted to me within the next week or so.
The largest port in North Wales is Holyhead. I am in touch with British Rail and the Ministry of Transport about Holyhead. British Rail is making a study in depth of the potential of the port and of the future pattern of trade there. I have every confidence that the outcome will be an expansion of the port and an increase in trade over the next few years.
I come to the problem of derelict land in Wales. Aberfan has focused the attention of the country on the other areas of industrial dereliction in Wales. These areas have been surveyed by the Welsh Office. Taking as the definition of derelict land all that land that has been so damaged by industrial or other development that it is incapable of beneficial use without treatment, there are over 16,000 acres in Wales consisting in the main of spoil heaps, excavations and disused industrial sites, including disused colliery buildings and plant. Of this total of 16,000 acres, about 10,000 acres are considered by the local authorities to justify treatment either to enable the sites to be used for new development or to improve the appearance of the neighbourhood or to remove possible sources of danger. This is one of the inheritances of the industrial revolution.
50
The Government accept that one of the lessons to be drawn from Aberfan is that much faster progress must now be made in dealing with this problem of dereliction. To this end, it has been decided that every encouragement should be given to local authorities to take full advantage of the provisions of Section 20 of the Industrial Development Act, 1966. These provisions enable derelict sites in the development areas to be cleared where it appears to the Minister concerned that the site is "derelict, neglected, or unsightly" and where it appears to the Board of Trade that it is
"expedient with a view to contributing to the development of industry in that area that steps should be taken for the purpose of enabling the land to be brought into use or of improving its appearance".
For these purposes it is possible for me, with the consent of the Treasury, to make grants to the local authorities for acquiring the land and carrying out the necessary works.
Spoil heaps no longer in use, which constitute a safety hazard, will normally be "derelict, neglected or unsightly", and it will be open for me, as the Minister concerned in Wales, to include them under the provisions of the 1966 Act. The Board of Trade will interpret the provisions of Section 20 in a broad sense so that even if the spoil heap itself or the area immediately adjacent to it is not to be turned into a site for industry, the spoil heap can still be covered by Section 20 on the grounds that improvement in its appearance is likely to contribute to industrial development in the area generally. For example, an unsightly and unsafe tip could be covered, even though it was not in the immediate vicinity of industrial sites.
As regards finance, the grants payable under the 1966 Act are at present 85 per cent. of the net cost, with a maximum of 95 per cent. of Exchequer money payable in cases of authorities which attract rate deficiency grant. These are already generous grants, but if finance is an impediment in any exceptional case where safety is involved we shall be prepared to consider some relaxation in the existing arrangements so as to ensure that early progress is made. The Government are determined to see real progress in clearing derelict sites with priority for those which also constitute a hazard to

51
safety; and provision for the necessary expenditure will be included in Estimates for 1967–68, which will be submitted to the House in due course.
Some of the local authorities concerned may not themselves have all the staff or the resources needed to undertake all the work involved. To meet this difficulty, and to provide the necessary impetus, I am creating a small special unit in the Welsh Office which will have professional staff attached to it and which will work in close co-operation with other Government Departments, the local authorities, the National Coal Board, the Forestry Commission and other bodies whose co-operation will be needed. This co-operation will, I know, be readily forthcoming.
The House will agree that this is a substantial step forward in our attempt to deal with this difficult and urgent problem. The improvement of the physical environment involves much more, however, than the removal of tips and the treatment of areas of industrial dereliction.
It also means the provision of decent housing for our people. This is a subject which is very relevant to this debate today, because one of the first questions asked by industrialists moving into Wales is whether houses are available for executives and key workers. We must also see to it that good housing is available for our own people—especially young people—otherwise they will move out of the older industrial areas and perhaps out of Wales altogether.
Last year, more houses were built in Wales than ever before. In fact, nearly twice as many were completed as were completed seven or eight years ago. But at present we have a record number of over 23,000 dwellings under construction. Our aim is to steadily increase the size of the housing programme in Wales to keep pace with increased productivity in the building industry so that every family that wants a house of their own will be able to have one.
Another inheritance of the industrial revolution is our large stock of dwellings which are now over 80 years old—many of them unfit to live in, many more of them lacking modern amenities. With over 3,000 unfit houses being cleared
52
each year, and over 7,000 older houses brought up to modern standards each year with the aid of Exchequer and local authority grants, the general state of housing in Wales is steadily improving, but we shall not relax our efforts until everyone has a good house with modern amenities.
What sort of Wales do we want to see? This is the concern of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Our plan for Wales will, in fact, be published as early as possible next year. It will be produced in close consultation with the Welsh Economic Council, which has already contributed to the thinking behind the plan through its own studies and in other ways. Many other bodies are also being consulted, including a wide range of Government Departments, both sides of industry, the Welsh Tourist Board and the University of Wales.
The plan will set out the Government's proposals for dealing with Welsh problems and for making the best use of the great resources of Wales in the next decade and until the end of the century. I am anxious to present the White Paper as quickly as possible, and there will be no unavoidable delay, but the House will appreciate that a study of this kind—ranging so widely in time and content—cannot and should not be prepared in a hurry.
Obviously, the plan will have a bearing on the immediate problems facing Wales, but it will be mainly concerned with the Government's long-term policies. These are designed to establish the Welsh economy on a secure and lasting basis and to create the best possible living and working conditions for the people of Wales. The plan will show what progress the Government are determined to make towards achieving these objectives in the years ahead.
The picture of Wales as I see it, therefore, is of short-term difficulties, which should not be minimised, but with long-term prospects, which are bright. Those who paint a gloomy picture of Wales are doing our country the greatest possible disservice. The scars on the Welsh landscape and in the hearts of our people are not to be removed in one day. All of us are impatient to get on with the job of building up a new environment. If we are not making the rapid progress, or

53
more rapid progress, that we would all wish to see, it is not because of any lack of willingness on our part, but because of the magnitude of the job. We are, however, at last grappling with these problems after a century of comparative indifference and a "couldn't-care-less" attitude.
I want to see a Wales whose unrivalled beauty is preserved for future generations. I want to see a Wales where our young people can enjoy the opportunities of a good education and rewarding employment. The progress we are now making demonstrates that we are on the right lines. Our people have shown throughout history that they are an independent, courageous, imaginative, tough and adaptable people, and I want to see a Wales in which these qualities are given the chance of full expression.
Above all, and I end on this poignant note, I want to see a Wales where our children can live and study and play in healthy surroundings and in complete safety—with no fear of tips, no fear of traffic and, above all, no fear that when they grow to manhood or womanhood they will be faced with the spectre of unemployment and the need to leave the land of their fathers.
4.18 p.m.
Mr. David Gibson-Watt: First, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I would like to join with the Secretary of State in his good wishes to His Royal Highness Prince Charles upon his birth-flay. We wish him many happy returns.
Secondly, I turn to a more sombre matter. The Secretary of State quite lightly referred to the Aberfan disaster. Let me say here and now that what he said later in his speech, about getting rid of the dumps and some of the unsightly parts of the Principality, under Section 20 of the Industrial Development Act, 1966, will have our full support. Of course, there may be questions of detail which we may wish to ask him. We may, for instance—in fact, I do so now—wish to ask him whether this Section will apply not merely to those areas which are owned by local authorities, but also to those which are owned by nationalised industries and, indeed, by private individuals. Will this legislation apply in the same way throughout?
When we are faced with this annual debate, and when those of us who are
54
concerned with the future of Wales have to consider what we will say, there is so much and there are so many subjects upon which we can touch. It is a fact that the Report—Wales 1965—is already out of date. I do not complain, but it is, perhaps a pity that our debate takes place so long afterwards. We know, too, that the annual Welsh Digest of Statistics is not yet out. It is expected, I believe, at the end of next month.
I put it to the Secretary of State, that in arranging the date of our debate—and we all know that this is a matter which has to be arranged through what is called "the usual channels "—we might have a date when both these productions are before us. It does make it a little difficult for anybody who does not have access to all the information, which obviously the Welsh Office has, to make a complete study of these matters.
We are discussing trade and industry today, which is a very wide subject. I cannot help referring to the fact that last Wednesday there was a debate on the agricultural industry. It was a long debate. It was opened by the Minister of Agriculture and it was wound up by the Secretary of State for Scotland. There were a number of speeches from both sides of the House and a number of questions were asked about Welsh agriculture: but not one answer did we get from either the Minister of Agriculture in starting or the Secretary of State for Scotland in winding up. Nor did either of those right hon. Gentlemen give way, except on one minor occasion, throughout that debate.
I regret this, and I believe that many hon. Members on both sides of the House regret it, because there are a number of difficulties—I do not wish to paint a gloomy picture—in the fatstock and the store stock position, both with sheep and cattle. Perhaps the Minister of State, in winding up, could say something about this today.
Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is an argument for putting agriculture in Wales under the Secretary of State, as it is in Scotland?
Mr. Gibson-Watt: No. It would take too long for me to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman why I am not of his opinion.

55
In listening to the various matters which the right hon. Gentleman discussed today, we realise full well the great number of problems which the Secretary for Wales already has to face.
Reverting to agriculture, we have, over three-quarters of the land surface of Wales, affected today by the difficulties of the livestock industry. This will mean, and it is often overlooked by industrialists, that farmers will buy very much less machinery and fertiliser this year than last—the money is just not there. That, of course, will affect the agricultural machinery and fertiliser industries. Perhaps the Minister of State will be able to tell us something about that aspect.
The tourist industry is in some difficulty. The Secretary of State quite rightly said that although he had not time to refer to that industry today it did not mean that he does not think it as important as I do. Investment grants are no substitute for investment allowances, and the tourist industry does not think so. The Selective Employment Tax has hit it for six, and a very large proportion of the hotel industry in Wales—particularly in Notrh Wales and Llandudno—is not within the development area. Those are three things that the Government have the capability and responsibility to alleviate, and I hope that the Minister of State will be able to refer to that subject.
Wales has much to offer the holiday-maker, and we could do much more than we do today. Some time ago the right hon. Gentleman told me that he was to have talks with the Welsh Tourist Board. Has that meeting had any results? What can we be told about it? We know that the Welsh tourist industry faces great problems, and it is not only we on this side who criticise the Government's actions here. One has only to look at the Sunday newspapers to read what Lord Shawcross, an ex-Labour Minister, has to say about the present Government's treatment of the tourist industry.
What did Lord Shawcross say? He accused the Government of
"… giving the impression that it was determined to destroy tourism both as an earner of foreign exchange and as an amenity at home."
Mr. Michael Foot: A fatheaded remark.
Mr. Gibson-Watt: It is open to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) to describe his erstwhile friend as fatheaded, but I am quoting the words of someone who was thought worthy enough to make this speech at Torquay, and that is what he had to say. I do not know whether the hon. Member is particularly interested in the tourist industry in his part of the country, but if he was trying to get people to come to his town he would find is extraordinarily difficult owing to what has been done by the Government—
Mr. Michael Foot: I am interested in greater numbers of people coming to Ebbw Vale. What I was describing as fatheaded was Lord Shawcross's suggestion that the Government deliberately wanted to do away with the tourist industry. No remark could have been more outrageous, and Lord Shawcross must have known its absurdity and, indeed, its completely misleading nature, when he made it.
Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am glad to find that the hon. Gentleman is in accord with his Front Bench. I have mentioned the three things that the Government could do to help the tourist industry and which they have not done. They have not put a large portion of the hotel industry into the development area. They have not done anything in the way of removing the Selective Employment Tax from the industry—and we also have that third matter which skips my memory for the moment.
Let us go from there to another question touched on by the right hon. Gentleman—the question of the new town in Mid-Wales. There we have always had our depopulation difficulties, and depopulation has been the major concern of our Welsh debates. It is fair to say that in this respect, the right hon. Gentleman got landed with the election pledges of his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths). The consultants have now reported on the new town, and I well remember that the report was held in the Welsh Office for six months and not made public until July last.
Now it has been publisher, and the right hon. Gentleman is asking local authorities for their views. That is very right and proper, but let us be in no

57
doubt what he is asking. He is asking every local authority in Mid-Wales, "Do you or do you not want £137 million to be spent in 3'our part of the country?" Well, we are all Welshmen—how many of us would refuse £137 million to be spent in our part of the country? We must consider this question in that light. It will remain the responsibility of the Secretary of State, and his alone, to decide whether to spent £137 million in Mid-Wales on this one project is the best way of spending money in Wales.
Mr. James Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman knows my views, and I have not changed them. I think that the new town is the answer to the problem of Mid-Wales. Coming from Radnorshire, as he does, I am sure that he will join me in saying how glad he is to find that his county, and Merionethshire and Montgomeryshire, have come out in favour of the new town.
Mr. Gibson-Watt: I had hoped that by throwing the fly over the right hon. Gentleman I would get him to rise to it. If he had been at the meeting of the Radnorshire County Council the other morning, as I was, he would have heard what proposition was put and accepted, but it was very clear from the debate that the council did not want a new town at Caersws. That was made fundamentally obvious in the debate.
I see the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place, so I come back to the question that any Secretary of State for Wales has to face, which is whether this £137 million he has should be used on a new town in Mid-Wales, or on communications, or on the vast number of things on which the right hon. Gentleman touched in South Wales. I merely say that this is a question of priorities.
Mr. James Griffiths Mr. James Griffiths indicated dissent.
Mr. Gibson-Watt: The right hon. Gentleman very courteously, as usual, disagrees with me. I equally, and I hope equally courteously, disagree with him—
Mr. James Griffiths: We are spending hundreds of millions of pounds on new towns in England and in Scotland. The hon. Member's argument applies not only to a Welsh new town, but to all the new towns in the country.
Mr. Gibson-Watt: Yes, but even the consultants said in their report that this was not a Welsh answer to a Welsh problem. They also said that it was not an answer to overspill from the Midlands. We should bear those two points in mind.
In these debates we have always referred over the years to the pressing problem of redeployment—something which the Secretary of State has mentioned today—necessitated by the con traction of older industries which has gone on under all Governments since the war. I thought that the right hon. Gentle man rather over-egged the pudding when he said that in Wales we had suffered from comparative indifference for over 100 years—
Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I was referring to dereliction.
Mr. Gibson-Watt: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point on dereliction. I thought that he was speaking in a general way, and I withdraw what I said.
But I would say that Governments of all colours have tried to deal with this question of redeployment, and one of the factors here is the location of industry. This is clearly something that vitally affects every hon. Member. There is hardly an hon. Member in the House today who has a constituency in the valleys who is not faced, first, by the short-term question of bringing in immediate employment, and, secondly, by the long-term question of where the best place is to put these industries.
Very often the short-term and the long-term can be in conflict. Here again, a major difficulty which industry faces—leaving aside all the figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave today about advance factories and I.D.C.s—the one fundamental thing which the industry in Wales, as in other places, faces, is the level of private investment.
The Chancellor, indeed the Prime Minister, has been asking for higher private investment, but that is not easy under a Socialist Government. For two years we have had a Government who have been openly anti-private enterprise and have treated profits as something with a bad smell. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] When we have a party which, over the years, has run down the profit motive we cannot be surprised that there is a rundown in private investment. This is

59
something which has to be got over. If, during the course of getting over it, we change the philosophy of the party opposite, at least something will have been achieved.
I now deal with some financial matters. If we leave on one side restriction of credit and speak of Corporation Tax, Selective Employment Tax and 10 per cent. Surtax, we realise that these are some of the things which are discouraging investment. Hon. Members opposite often make noises against the Surtax payer, but in many cases Surtax payers are the men and women who can start industries and help to diversify industry. They need encouragement. They should not be continually discouraged by crippling taxation.
Today, the financial climate in which businessmen are hesitant to launch out on new ventures is something we have to get rid of. It is a situation which has been created by the financial policies of the party opposite and is described by the Prime Minister as "a period of shake-out". I ask the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Government how long they intend deliberately to keep high levels of unemployment which result from lack of investment resulting from the failure of their economic policies.
Until the Government recognise that through their financial policies they should encourage enterprise, we shall not see the situation improve. The Government may argue that they are bringing to Wales a great deal of public expenditure, but this is only half the answer. Although it may bring employment, so much public expenditure does not of itself make a direct contribution to exports.
I come to the question of Selective Employment Tax.
Mr. Donald Anderson: "Tell me the old, old story."
Mr. Gibson-Watt: Yes, the old, old story, but it does not get better as we go on.
Many people, in small industries particularly, would bear out what I say. I do not believe that the Chancellor likes this tax any more than he did when he was forced to produce it. Even he must
60
have thought that it was a bad tax when he introduced it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan): If these people are in small industry they are getting a premium; not paying anything.
Mr. Gibson-Watt: If the Chancellor really believes that about his tax he had better consult the gentlemen in the Treasury, who know more about it than he does. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I say this with great respect to him. If the right hon. Gentleman honestly believes that people in small industries are benefiting from Selective Employment Tax, he is utterly wrong. There are people in small Welsh businesses today who would bear me out. If one does not happen to be in manufacturing industry, one does not benefit at all. In Wales, over the past 15 years, we have seen a great growth in the service part of industry. This is something greatly to be encouraged, but now, I am sorry to say, it is being discouraged.
The Secretary of State has been asking the Economic Council to tell him of the effect which Selective Employment Tax is having. He has been told for a very long time what effect it would have. He has been told that it would hurt the tourist industry, that it would hurt agriculture. He has been told that these two industries, which are the greatest savers of our balance of payments, will be particularly hard hit.
Mr. Elystan Morgan: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his usual courtesy in giving way. Does he appreciate that Wales appears to come out of Selective Employment Tax rather better than England? In Wales, 32·3 per cent. of the people pay the tax, whereas in Britain as a whole 38·1 per cent. pay it. In Wales, 37·2 per cent. receive a refund, whereas in Britain only 27·3 per cent. receive a refund.
Mr. Gibson-Watt: This is a dangerous argument. I doubt very much whether the hon. Member would be prepared to follow it up in his own constituency. A Question was asked in the House a week ago about the effect of the tax on the South-West. Perhaps the officials are not so quick to find the figures there, but they were not available from the Ministry of Labour. This is an argument which

61
the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) should give up.
It was not necessary for the Secretary of State to take the question of Selective Employment Tax to the Economic Council. What will it be able to tell him which he does not know already—what we have told him from this side of the House for a very long time? This is a public relations exercise. A man of his calibre need not have adopted this type of subterfuge. It is a bad tax and the Chancellor who is sitting in our debate today should see his way to remove it at the earliest opportunity.
The Secretary of State dealt very rightly with the question of communications. This is a matter which we on this side of the House are very ready to talk about. After all, we were responsible for launching a very large motorway and trunk road programme in Wales, much of which is obviously still being finished. What has concerned us is what will happen in the years ahead.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), the other day, asked a Question relating to motorways and trunk roads. He was told by the Under-Jiecretary of State that 4·4 miles were opened in July, 1966 on the Port Talbot by-pass and 18½ miles were under construction on the M4. He was also told that there was no motorway for which a contract had been placed, no scheme for which tenders had been invited, none for which a scheme had been made, nor for which a draft scheme had been published.
In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon, when he gave us some welcome news about two roads in particular, perhaps, in winding up the debate, the Minister of State can tell us whether what the Under-Secretary said only three or four days ago is now out of date, whether something is planned for this period, or is the cupboard bare for the period 1969–70–71? I leave the question of communications there, except to say that we still believe that if money is available an east-west road from Shrewsbury to Cardigan Bay would be an immense improvement for the Welsh economy, particularly the economy of Mid-Wales.
I hope that I shall have the under-sanding of the House in dealing with such a human question as employment—
62
jobs—and those who at present are unemployed in Wales. I have said before that over the years the unemployment rate in Wales has been stubbornly twice the national average, or not very far behind it. There are reasons for this, known to many hon. Members on both sides. What is an acceptable figure of unemployment? The present Government are having difficulty, as all Governments have had, in facing up to this. The Prime Minister said that it is clear that 2 per cent. is acceptable after redeployment, and this was made clear by the Minister of Labour, at col. 673, in the debate on 24th October. If we are to have a 2 per cent. average in the United Kingdom after redeployment, what figure shall we have in Wales? We must face the fact that it will be near 4 per cent. unless things change very considerably.
When will redeployment be completed? Many people think that it will go on and on. Therefore, we do not know what the forward figures of unemployment are likely to be. I do not intend to say more, but I point to the fact that if we are to accept the figure of 2 per cent. put forward by the Prime Minister for the United Kingdom level and 4 per cent. as the Welsh level, the figures in certain parts of Wales will be certainly higher. Therefore, this is something to which the Government must carefully turn our attention.
Perhaps the Minister of State can tell us how many of the present unemployed in Wales are temporarily unemployed. In the 24th October debate the Minister of Labour said that of the 437,000 unemployed in the United Kingdom 63,000 were temporarily stopped.
We are today debating a question which concerns the livelihood of many thousands of men and women and, in particular, the future careers of our young people. This is a great responsibility. It is a subject that we all try to tackle in a responsible way. As I said earlier, the problem is whether or not the Secretary of State of the day should take the long view always or sometimes the short view. We are a great home-loving people, and we prefer to have our work near home. This makes the Government's job more difficult. The problem of whether to take the job to the people or the people to the job is

63
something that the right hon. Gentleman must often have in mind.
This annual debate comes as a form of stocktaking as we weigh up the future prospects of the Principality. What a different picture industry and employment present now compared with 4th November last year! On that occasion the right hon. Member for Llanelly, who opened the debate, ended with these words:
"My last word is to my compatriots in Wales. A fresh new opportunity for Wales is coming under the National Plan. I believe that we shall rise to the challenge and build a Wales of tomorrow which will be equal to the inheritance bequeathed to us."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 4th November, 1965; Vol. 718, c. 1255.]
There is not much left of the National Plan. It has gone with the wind. There is talk from the right hon. Gentleman of a new Welsh Plan. I only hope that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown), will have nothing whatever to do with that. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will produce it, and that it will be a plan that will help us with the problems that we have to deal with tomorrow.
Anybody today who considers the position as it was a year ago must be tempted to answer the question which the right hon. Gentleman then asked about the Welsh inheritance and inquire whether anybody today believes that the position which the Labour Party inherited from us in Wales has been improved. I do not know; it is up to the Welsh people to decide, and it is up to each Government, over the years, to do what they can within the framework of the national economy.
The Secretary of State today touched on many matters, but I believe that the greatest matter that we have to deal with is the positive employment of our people. I have on purpose framed my remarks today in a way which, I hope, will be encouraging and positive in relation to what the country and the Principality, in particular, are trying to do for the future. We look to the Secretary of State and his Office to lead this spearhead, and I hope that when he winds up the Minister of State will measure up to and answer the questions that we put to him in this debate.
4.43 p.m.
Mr. Harold Finch: I listened with considerable interest to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, and take this opportunity to congratulate him on the admirable way in which he dealt with trade and industry in the Principality. He covered a great deal of ground, and I am sure that the House is grateful for the information that he gave us. After the information that we have been given, I imagine that this will be a very well balanced debate. We are particularly grateful to know that improved measures are being taken with regard to derelict land in South Wales, particularly after the tragedy at Aberfan.
I feel sure that my right hon. Friend, with the enthusiasm that he has always displayed, will ensure that the advance factories will be occupied as soon as possible and that the unemployment figure is brought down as soon as possible. I recognise that my right hon. Friend and others have come into office at a very crucial time in the history of Wales when we are facing rapid changes in industrial and social life. Many industries are being modernised, and this is creating problems of redundancy and unemployment in many districts, and also other problems. I am conscious that my right hon. Friends have not had a very long time to do the job that they are there to do.
In addition, we must not forget that Wales cannot escape the effect of the policy of the Government—a policy that I wholeheartedly agree with, however unfortunate it may be—in relation to their efforts—I hope that they will be effective efforts—to improve our balance of payments. No doubt this is creating some hardship in Wales. My concern arises because this comes on top of and in addition to pit closures which have taken place in Wales for years.
We are not here dealing with a problem that is suddenly brought about by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in dealing with the matter, such as the heavy taxation of the last 12 months, or the Selective Employment Tax. We are dealing with a problem that has been facing the miners of South Wales for many years. I say at once that the National Coal Board, the National Union of Mine-workers and Government Departments for

65
quite a time have faced up to this problem. The Ministry of Labour, the Board of Trade, and the mining industry have been able to cope with pit closures for a long time, and men have been found other work. Government Departments have been very busy in an effort to find other employment.
By and large, this re-employment has worked fairly smoothly in the valleys of South Wales for some time, and there has been co-operation between all those associated with the industry. But during the past 12 months, in the South Wales coalfields, the end of the road has been reached. Pit closures have been going on relentlessly over a long period and we have arrived at saturation point. If these closures are to continue in localities where there is already high unemployment a great deal of distress and hardship will be created.
I have argued for a long time that perhaps certain pits which the Coal Board has in mind can still be closed in areas where there will be little hardship. That may be being done now. I do not know—I should like to see the Coal Board's plans for future pit closures. It is possible that in future circumstances the Board can say that it will close a pit, as it is unremunerative, and that there will not be much unemployment because employment prospects in the nearby area are good. That is all very well. All along the mining community has realised that there must be pit closures. If they are inevitable it faces the position. It understands the economic position and the position of many pits in South Wales. It may be true that closures can still take place in certain localities in certain circumstances.
I am sorry that there does not seem to be a representative of the Ministry of Power present, because I must voice my protest very strongly at the continuation of pit closures where there is already high unemployment. I do not want to make a constituency speech, but in my own area, at Risca, we have had the closing down of the famous Nine Mile Point Colliery and the Risca Colliery. The percentage of unemployment there is now 6 per cent., and the neighbouring pit is likely to be closed. If so, a great deal of hardship and suffering will be caused to the people of Risca.
66
All I ask is that in these circumstances the Coal Board will look at its future programme and consider those areas where there is high unemployment, and hold off pit closures at least until alternative work is available. That is not too much to ask in the present circumstances. The Government must either pay unemployment benefit, and there will be the suffering that unemployment involves, or, under certain circumstances, the Coal Board must foot the bill for a short period.
Over the years the mining communities have suffered from subsidence. They are told, "You cannot build a hospital in this valley because of subsidence," and, "You cannot build houses in the place the local authority has in mind because of subsidence". In my constituency, houses are falling down because of subsidence. The tips have been referred to. We have mentioned tips on this side of the House before, but this matter has not received publicity. One of my hon. Friends who has now retired was always dismayed when, after making a lengthy speech on momentous problems, it had little publicity. My hon. Friends and I raised the question of tips on a number of occasions, but it is not "copy". It is not of a national character, or to do with international affairs. "What are tips?", it was asked. Now there has been the Aberfan disaster and all the talk is of the tips. While I agree with my right hon. Friend and am very gratified that he has taken the additional steps, I must point out that we have raised the question on a number of occasions.
In addition to the problem of mining subsidence and tips there are the mining injuries caused by explosions and diseases such as pneumoconiosis. Just before Aberfan we had the Taff Vale explosion, when men were burned. This has been part of the life of mining communities, and the miners have borne it over the years with fortitude. They say nothing, and go on with the task, but now they also face pit closures. And they do face up to them; they do not run away. I do not want to be critical of the car industry. I realise that people in it are facing hardships in many respects. But the mining industry never made all this fuss and bother during the years that it has had to face unemployment and pit closures.

67
I appeal to the Ministry of Power to listen to these figures: in 1958, 107,000 men were employed in the Welsh coalfields, and this figure has now fallen to 55,000. Those are amazing figures. The men have left the industry or been reemployed. The figures show that the miners and the mining community deserve—I was going to say the compassion of the Government—a policy whereby the Coal Board and the Ministry of Power will say, "Very well, we must go on with pit closures as time goes on; we must face the economic facts of the position. But, having regard to the high unemployment in certain localities, we shall put them off until alternative employment is available". That is a reasonable and sensible policy to adopt. That is planning as it should be, planning to look at each locality for the years to come.
I am sorry that I must be critical on one or two aspects of Government policy, but there is also the question of training. The National Union of Mineworkers has for a long time made reasonable demands for more training centres in South Wales. It makes no criticism of certain pit closures, but wants its men trained if they must leave the industry. Thanks to the Ministry of Labour and other Government Departments, there are two excellent training centres in South Wales. It is encouraging that the Government's Cardiff and Llanelli training centres are so successful. Industrialists are going there, and men are beginning to see the great advantage of them. This gives extra impetus to the demand for more training centres, and I appeal to the Ministry of Labour to push on with the establishment of training centres in the valleys of South Wales. It is all very well having them in Cardiff and Port Talbot—some men are willing to travel—but let us have them in the mining valleys so that miners becoming redundant and leaving the industry can be trained there.
It will be said, and I have heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour say it before, that this takes time. I appreciate that it is necessary to have efficient lecturers and teachers to set up a training centre, but pit closures have been going on in South Wales for years. This is not something new. I should have thought that by now there
68
would have been established somewhere in the coalfields another Government training centre to which miners and others could go for training to fit themselves for using new skills in industry. If the Government take early steps to do that they will earn the gratitude of the miners, who are not ungrateful. I again urge the Ministry to proceed as quickly as possible with the establishment of these centres.
I have one other point on this matter, which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas) has raised before. It concerns B.O.T.A.C., the Board of Trade Advisory Committee, which I wish would be a little more flexible. There is not only a need to get new industries into South Wales, but to expand those which already exist there. Quite a number of firms in South Wales have applied for grants to expand their undertakings, but B.O.T.A.C. seems to be a sort of law unto itself. We do not get any reply from it.
Industries in my constituency have made applications for extra grants to expand, and when there is a refusal no explanation is given. Some of these industrialists feel very frustrated; they do not know why they are refused. It may be that B.O.T.A.C. has sound reasons for refusing an application. If so, let the industrialists know why, so that they will know what the prospects are for the future.
If my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Board of Trade would look at this organisation again, to see whether they could from time to time give industrialists the reasons why their applications for grant cannot be accepted, this would be a great help. People would then know where they stood.
I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends and the Welsh Office for the efforts which they are making to improve the situation in South Wales. I am sure that, if it rests with them, they will do all they possibly can. We are awaiting the expansion of industry. We are now in a lull. Let us take advantage of this standstill. Now is the time to get moving, to train our men so that they are ready for an expansion of industry in Wales. At the end of the day, perhaps by this time next year, with expansion beginning to come along, we shall have some trained men

69
to undertake the necessary work in the coalfield valleys. Miners are waiting for these jobs. Industrialists tell us that they want more trained and skilled men. Let us get on with it now during the standstill.
If measures in that direction are taken, my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Welsh Office will be able to say, 12 months from now, that we are ready to expand, that more industries are coming to Wales, and that we are once more moving as near as we possibly can to the full employment for which we all are striving.
5.2 p.m.
Mr. Nigel Birch: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bed-wellty (Mr. Finch) spoke with great knowledge of mining and the problems of South Wales. My fear for the future is that we are much more likely to be short of coal than have too much of it in 10 or 12 years. I have quite a number of miners in my own constituency. Some of them are working in Denbighshire, but there is one colliery working in Flintshire, Point of Air, where a large expansion is taking place. Houses are to be built by the Coal Board to accommodate miners who are coming in, and it may well be that we shall have the privilege of giving hospitality to some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
I shall speak about a subject on which I have addressed the House before, the exclusion of the coastal strip of North-East Wales from the Welsh Development Area. As soon as this was announced, naturally, all the local authorities realised the dangers. Representations were made, and I led a deputation to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths), then Secretary of State for Wales, to put the case to him. It was put very well. Needless to say, we were received with the utmost courtesy by the right hon. Gentleman, but, although we were not sent away with a flea in our ear, we were sent away with nothing else.
Representations continued both to the Secretary of State and to the Board of Trade. At the urgent request of the Flintshire County Council, the Minister of State came to a meeting with the Flintshire County Council, which I attended. Most of the members of the
70
council and the officials were so intoxicated by the hon. Gentleman's febrile charm that they actually thought that something had happened. For myself, however, having been under the wand of the enchanter before, I was, so to speak, inoculated, and I was fairly certain that nothing would happen. Nothing has happened, and I gather from the Board of Trade, with which I have been in touch during the past week or so, that it is very likely that nothing will happen.
This is a matter of considerable importance. The Board of Trade rests the case for the exclusion of the coastal strip of North-East Wales on employment statistics. These statistics are contested by the local councils, particularly in the Rhyl Employment Exchange area, which includes Prestatyn. Rhyl is in the almost unique position of having been a development district but now being excluded from a development area, although unemployment there is just as high as it is in many other seaside resorts of Wales which are in development areas. Much the same is true in England. Scarborough, for example. where unemployment is not so bad as it is in Rhyl, is much the same area. A lot of the arguments based on other similar areas do not hold water from the standpoint of unemployment.
On the whole, we have been fortunate in Flintshire. The population of Flintshire has gone up every year this century and there has been some progressive industrial developments. Our difficulty is that employment is concentrated in too few directions. There is coal, as I have said, there is aircraft, there is textiles and there is steel. Aircraft, although we are all right at the moment, is always a dicey business. As for textiles, the industry is to run down, according to the National Plan, though whether that will happen or not I am not sure. At the moment, we are all right.
Steel is the real worry because the Summers Rolling Mills cater for the manufacture of cars and other consumer durables. There is already a warning of redundancy, and I do not see how it can conceivably be avoided, and the steel mills have probably got quite as many men as they ought to have anyway. So we need diversification, and we need it much more because the other end of the

71
county depends upon tourism, and tourism, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) pointed out, has been struck some savage blows, including the Selective Employment Tax. We could easily find ourselves in bad trouble.
There in another point here, which ought to be taken very seriously, that, if one is trying to build up the industry of a country, it is not wise to penalise those areas where production is likely to be most economic. The centres of production must be fairly near the market; there must be the necessary road, rail communications, and water. If too many factories are put down in isolated areas where costs are not competitive, at a time of difficulty, such as we have now, these are exactly the factories which will have to close first. It is wrong, therefore, to stop development in areas where development can be most useful and profitable.
The difficulty in North-East Wales, particularly in Flintshire, is that we are sandwiched between two development areas. Believe it or not, the Wirral is a development area, but the Wirral has been busting at the seams for years, and it is now actually drawing workpeople out of Wales. On the other side, the greater part of Denbighshire is included. The tax advantages in going to the Wirral or to Denbighshire over going to Flintshire are, therefore, enormous.
If this is put to the Board of Trade, the answer always comes, "If someone applies for an industrial development certificate, we shall look at it quite favourably". But the important words are, "If someone applies". Why should someone apply if they are put at such a tremendous tax disadvantage? In Flintshire, we have the sites, we have the communications and we have the water. We have all the necessary means for development, and, now the Darwen and Mostyn Iron Works has been closed, there is a perfectly good site for a trading estate.
South-East Wales has been excluded from the Welsh development area, but an enormous and very expensive shot in the arm has been given to South-East Wales by the building of the Severn Bridge, which will reduce costs in South-East Wales and make the area far more attractive industrially than in the past. Nothing
72
like this has been done for North-East Wales, but our equivalent of the Severn Bridge could be the Dee estuary scheme. We have had a few encouraging noises from the Government about this, but I hope that the Minister of State will tell us, if he can, of any late developments.
We understand that a model of the Dee estuary has been built at Wallingford, and that various other things have been done. It would be a great encouragement to us if we knew that at least some firm ideas about the future had been formed. Nothing could be more likely to assist North-East Wales and, indeed, the whole of North Wales, than that scheme, which would have the great advantages of creating good communications, water conservation and the reclamation of land. That is all I have to say. I hope that we shall have a favourable answer from the Minister of State.
5.12 p.m.
Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies: I very much hope that the fact that I have some reservations about the improved state of economic development and the prospects for economic development in Wales will not be interpreted as any lack of appreciation of what has been done and is being done. The Welsh Office and the Board of Trade are to be congratulated on the very considerable activity of the last two years, particularly in comparison with the activity or rather lack of activity under the previous Administration. What has been done is doubly laudable in view of the nature of the economic crisis which has prevailed during the greater part of the past two years.
It is not with the present intentions of the Government or with the way that they are putting those intentions into effect that I am concerned as much as with whether we are attributing the right order of magnitude to the employment problem which is about to face us in Wales. I am not now referring particularly to the extra difficulties which result from the period of special restriction under which we now suffer.
I very much hope that in answering this debate, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Welsh Office, can show that my fears are ill-founded, but I rather suspect that the problem of surplus labour which we will have to face in Wales at the end of this decade will be of considerably

73
greater magnitude than we are catering for and calculating for.
It is now somewhat academic to speculate what the position would be if the rate of growth envisaged in the National Plan were likely to be achieved at the end of the present five-year period. It is now more realistic, perhaps, to think in terms of what the situation will be in terms of a continuation of the kind of rate of growth which we have encountered during the last five years.
If we assess what we are likely to have at the end of this decade given a normal rate of growth, what we are likely to have in the way of labour supply and what the demand for labour is likely to be at the beginning of the 1970s, I fear that we shall be meeting a demand for employment which is considerably greater than that for which we are calculating. It would be extremely valuable if a detailed study, more definitive than anything which has been published, were to be carried to show what the position is likely to be at the beginning of the 1970s and the size of the problem that we will then have to face.
I refer particularly to the advance factory programme, which, during the last two years, has been concentrated largely on meeting the special needs of the areas in which there have been pit closures. I am very much afraid that this advance factory programme is inadequate to the kind of problem that we will have to face. I grant that it is impossible to forecast with precision, but there is reason to believe that, given the widest margin of error, the kind of problem of surplus labour that we will have to face at the end of this decade may be three or four times the magnitude of the problem that we sometimes feel we have to face.
The coal industry alone is catering for a rundown by 1970 of more than 39,000 men. There will be a continued rundown in agriculture and there will certainly be considerable shedding of labour in the steel industry. Moreover, we have set ourselves certain goals. We have set ourselves the target of an unemployment figure as low as the unemployment figure for Britain as a whole. That is a considerable task to set ourselves. We are also speaking in terms of a considerable reduction of outward migration and of the possibility of
74
reducing it to zero. We talk, also, of a much improved activity rate. The activity rate in Wales stands at about 48 per cent., which is astonishingly low when we consider that the activity rate for Britain as a whole is nearly 10 per cent. higher. If, however, we are setting ourselves these ideals of policy, the employment problem that we will have to face will be of very great magnitude if we are to achieve those aims and to cater for not only the natural rundown in certain industries, but the special additional rundown resulting from the policy of the National Coal Board.
I would be inclined to say that, taking everything into account, we would be facing a surplus labour problem in the neighbourhood of 100,000 at the end of this decade; and if we were to achieve the rate of activity which we say that we would like to achieve, the figure might be considerably more than that. If that is the kind of problem that can be tackled and faced, that is all very well.
The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. George Thomas): Will my hon. Friend be kind enough to tell us on what he bases his estimate of 100,000 unemployed?
Mr. Davies: I base this estimate of the number of jobs to be filled on the considerable rundown which is expected in certain industries and on the calculations that can be based upon our desires to reduce our figure of unemployment to the national figure, which would mean bringing it down to about 1·6 per cent. We would be cutting down on outward migration, the yearly rate of which will be known to my hon. Friend, and we contemplate increasing our activity rate by 10 per cent. Taking all these factors into account might well give us a figure in excess of 100,000 jobs to be filled. I shall be very glad if my hon. Friend is able to reassure me. I have expressed the hope that my suspicions were ill-founded and that a detailed study will be carried out with as much precision as possible and that definitive figures can be given.
Part of the problem, however, is due to the fact that the coal industry is pursuing a policy of rundown, and many of our resources are being used to meet the situation which is created in the coalfields and being devoted there to advance

75
factories which are needed elsewhere—in rural areas in Mid-Wales and North Wales, where the rundown is not as dramatic but where it is taking place just as realistically. If the Coal Board could, if not retract completely, considerably slow down the process of closure, this would enable many resources which are now being devoted to the coalmining areas to be used in the rest of Wales where they are considerably needed.
There is one other point in that connection. Most of Wales is now a development area and this is very encouraging. A great deal is being done and I do not disparage it. I would, however, be very happy if the Board of Trade could give us guidance about precisely what kinds of industries we need to attract into Wales to face the kind of employment gap that will have to be filled by the end of the decade.
A number of factors have to be taken into account. Obviously, we want growth industries rather than industries which might die on our hands. It is important also that we should have industries which are labour-intensive and industries which in the process of growth will greatly add to their labour force. Using a number of criteria of this kind, and particularly the record of certain kinds of industries in Wales, some of which have succeeded and some of which have not, it would be possible to calculate and give guidance on the kind of industries which we need.
We are now facing in Llandegai the problem of getting an occupant for a 40-acre industrial site. I know that the Board of Trade has been diligent in trying to get an occupant, but I have a feeling that we are throwing out bait in the hope of catching anything. It is important to be selective and discriminating and to give guidance about precisely what kind of industry, judged according to a number of criteria, would be suitable to our needs in Wales.
I conclude by drawing attention briefly once again to the tourist industry. Wales's share of the internal tourist market in Britain is increasing and it can continue to do so considerably. This industry is, however, composed of small units. No individual hotel or group of hotels, no individual local authority, is large enough to finance its own research and publicity.
76
Hence it is important that the Wales Tourist Board should be doing this for Wales as a whole. It is already carrying out significant research. Its task is to project the image of Wales as adequately as possible.
I am deeply disturbed that the British Travel Association has been given a grant of £39,000—but for the period of restriction it would have been £1 million over three years—to finance internal publicity in Britain. It is the proper task of the British Travel Association to project the image of Britain as a whole abroad, but not to finance schemes within different areas of Britain, to publicise Wales, to publicise Scotland, to publicise regions of England, all of which are in competition with one another. This, in Wales, is the proper task of the Welsh Tourist Board, and I think that it is nonsensical that this kind of thing should be done through the British Travel Association, even if it uses the Welsh Tourist Board as its agents in doing so.
It is very important that the Welsh Tourist Board should have direct grants from the Government, and that its ties with the Welsh Office should be very much closer than they are at present. I know that this would be the wish of the people connected with tourism in Wales. I know that it would also be the wish of the staff of the Tourist Board. I very much hope the Secretary of State will look at the question of just how far he can involve himself more directly in tourism in Wales and the extent to which the tourist industry can become the responsibility of the Welsh Office.
5.21 p.m.
Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies) will forgive me if I do not follow him immediately in what he said, though I hope to come back later to a few of the matters on which he touched.
First of all, I should like to associate myself with what the Secretary of State said about Aberfan and the measures he outlined that he is intending to take about derelict tips. I do not think that any Member of this House could put his hand on his heart and say that at this time last year he would have regarded tips as a first priority.
I know that the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) mentioned this matter,

77
and I know that it has been raised in the House from time to time, and that that fact has not been given publicity—
Mr. G. Elfed Davies Mr. G. Elfed Davies (Rhondda, East)rose—
Mr. Hooson: I will give way in a moment. Let me finish this.
When the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State said that we had to have our priorities right it flashed through my mind that the best laid plans of mice and men go astray in the light of certain events. This was certainly one of them. It is a salutary lesson to us that our priorities, however honestly they are biased, may nevertheless be wrong.
Mr. G. Elfed Davies: I ask the hon. and learned Member whether, after this debate, he will go to the Library and peruse a copy of the Western Mail of 1st October where he will see that I raised the question of tips—20 days before the Aberfan disaster.
Mr. Hooson: I have not doubted for a moment that hon. Members were concerned about tips, and rightly so. All I am saying is that no one in that light of the then knowledge either knew or suspected this time last year that there would be immense danger, it would not be our first priority. We all know now that it should have been. This was something we could not, perhaps, have adequately foreseen politically, but it shows how we all must from time to time examine our own priorities.
It has always been difficult, I think, to speak on a Welsh day, because we try to cover so much ground. We have already tried to cover the whole of Welsh industry. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt), whom we are pleased to welcome from over the Border from time to time, raised the question of the new town and tourism. Of course, it is very difficult not to make a constituency speech, or one which is very narrow in its approach. Partly it is the fault of the system whereby we have only one day on the Floor of the House to discuss Welsh matters.
I was looking recently, as is the custom on these occasions, at past debates, and I saw that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths), whom I am very glad to see in
78
his place, speaking in the debate in June, 1964, after he had reviewed the situation in Wales, said:
"We therefore propose that the Labour Government which will be returned in the autumn shall appoint a Secretary of State for Wales, with a seat in the Cabinet, with executive authority over a number of Departments and overall responsibility for Government actions, policies and plans in Wales"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1964;Vol 697, c 660]
The right hon. Gentleman went on to enlarge upon that, and I entirely approved of what he said then. What I would express disappointment about is that the Secretary of State and his able team have not got greater responsibility than is entrusted to them at the present time.
I think that all Welsh Members, even the Front Bench on the Conservative side, if converted to this view, should press the Prime Minister that greater authority should be given to the Secretary of State. The hon. Member for Hereford complained that in the debate on agriculture neither the Minister of Agriculture nor the Secretary of State for Scotland dealt with any Welsh problems, though hon. Gentlemen had raised them in that debate. I suggested to him that it might be a very good reason for giving the Secretary of State for Wales authority over such matters.
There are certain Departments which, I am sure, are ripe for devolution to Wales. I hope that hon. Members on both sides will press for this devolution to take place. Indeed, I suspect that at present the Welsh Office has not enough to do. The Minister of State is for ever going to different parts of Wales, rather like the Pied Piper of Hamelin—and I know that the hon. Member is going to my constituency shortly. In fact, he arrived at my constituency during the summer and visited a farm which is infested with Warfarin resistant rats—and with his charm, rather like the Pied Piper of Hamelin, we hoped that he would lure the rats away; but in that we were disappointed.
Although from time to time one hears complaints rightly made in the House about the industrial revolution, and so on, I could not help reflecting on what I read recently by a very famous economist who opined that much of Britain's modern economic problems have arisen because

79
it matured industrially and economically at too early a stage. This, of course, is very true also of Wales. I was looking at the unemployment figures for the whole of the country and it is very interesting that our figure in Wales is very much higher than that for the south-east of England. The figure in Scotland is higher than in Wales. The figure for Northern Ireland, which has its own domestic Parliament, is very much higher, double, what it is in Scotland and Wales. The figure for Eire is even higher.
This simply proves the point, I think, that certain areas developed economically for very good economic reasons, and even though there is the will and the instrument there is often not the means of curing unemployment easily. I am a great believer that Wales should have a domestic Parliament. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) believes that Wales should have complete independence. Even so, countries which have got it cannot always cure this problem. One has to examine its root economic causes.
I remember that a few years ago in the House I listened to the right hon. Member for Llanelly—to whom the House always listens with great respect—even when it disagrees with him, saying that between 1900 and 1910 the population of Wales increased by 100,000. Since that time—I have checked it up—the population of Wales increased between 1910 and 1920. It is difficult to get the exact figures because of the war and war movement, but since that time—that is, 1920—the population of Wales has certainly decreased relatively and is not increasing in proportion to that of the rest of the country at the present time.
One of my complaints, not only about the present Government, but also the previous Government, is that the Reports on Wales are over-optimistic. I have read with interest every page of this green book, but one always finds in these books, in these Reports, as is almost inevitable—one can appreciate the human reasons for it—an over-optimistic approach. We are always given the numbers of new jobs provided. We never have the figures given of the old jobs which have disappeared. If one went back over these books and took the figures
80
out and added them all up—why, Wales would be absolutely booming at the present time; because we have always had news of the new factories, but not a word about Mr. Jones's little factory round the corner which employed nine and closed last year. We never get that sort of thing mentioned. It is partly because of Parkinson's Law in Government Departments; they have to justify their own existence, and always take a rather optimistic view. But I think that it behoves us to take a realistic view.
As I have said in the House before, it it not right for any Government to say, "We are doing far better for Wales than was achieved in the 1920s, or in the 1910 era." Progress is always relative. The fact that Fascist Spain is doing far better now than ever before is no justification for Fascism. The fact that Communist Russia is doing better than she was 30 or 40 years ago is no justification for Communism. The fact that the Government can say that things are better today than they were 20 or 30 years ago is no justification for the Government of today.
One can only compare progress in Wales with that in like countries of development in Western Europe and elsewhere. The truth is that, relatively, Wales has fallen behind. That is true, whatever Government we have had in power, of the last two or three decades. Because of the discovery of coal and iron and the development of the ports of Wales, we had an early industrial maturity. However much we complain of the effects of the Industrial Revolution, we also had great benefits from it. As every Social historian knows, the average industrial earnings in Wales between 1900 and 1914, as in England, were the highest in Europe.
That is not to say that they were high enough, but people were relatively better off here than they were in like countries of development. But because we had that kind of early industrial maturity and now we have had the decline of those initial basic industries, naturally we have had difficulties in our economy, which would have occurred whatever complexion of Government we had trying to control the problems. The criticism comes as to the effectiveness of efforts made by any given Government to deal with those problems.

81
What I want to concentrate on is this. Very often, we are too concerned with patching up what has existed, accepting the pattern of life as it was laid down in the nineteenth century, rather than looking into the future and deciding what the pattern of Wales is to be in 10, 20, 30 or 40 years' time. When visiting other countries, I am impressed by the great changes which have been brought about almost artificially by the creation of roads and by the planning of certain developments. In an area of high amenity such as California there has been the great development of the brain industries, and people have moved there because they enjoy the high amenity value of California.
I remember being in Finland a few years ago, and seeing a new town with a motorway made specially—[Interruption.] I shall come to the new town in a moment. I saw a new town, and a motorway had been built there. That had been planned.
As I have touched upon the new town, I now come to that. My objection to the new town as planned and put forward by the consultants is not primarily on economic grounds. If it is looked at simply and basically and wholly as an answer to an economic problem, there is much to be said for it. However, if one bears in mind that Wales is a nation and that there are vital social and cultural aspects involved, the problem becomes much more difficult. I have always stated that there is everything to be said for a massive investment in Mid-Wales, and the problem will not be tackled without that kind of investment. My difference of opinion arises largely over the siting of this town—[Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite can laugh. If they are in favour of this plan to draw 60,000 people from the Midlands to fill it, let them get up and say so.
Mr. George Thomas: So that I may understand exactly where the hon. Gentleman stands on this matter, will he tell me whether he objects to those people because they are English?
Mr. Hooson: Not at all.
May I illustrate the point in this way? In Northern Ireland, compared with the rest of Ireland, there is a very prosperous community. Industrially, Northern Ireland is much more developed than the
82
rest of Ireland. It was a plantation of settlers which arose in Cromwellian days. Economically, it had much to be said for it. But I am sure that no hon. Member opposite will argue that culturally, politically and socially it was justified. Just look at Irish history since.
Mr. James Griffiths: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, I am with him for the preservation of Welsh culture. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that in my town of Llanelli, the proportion of Welsh speakers far exceeds that in the area where we propose to build the new town?
Mr. Hooson: Yes, but the Minister of State interrupted me to ask if I was against 60,000 people coming from the Midlands. Of course, I am not in itself. I am a great believer in internationalism. What I object to is the fact that 60,000 is larger than the existing population of Montgomeryshire, so that that number of people cannot be absorbed by the existing community. They will dominate us completely.
There are many parts of Wales which are in decay. There are many scars of the nineteenth century which could be repaired by having a new town or an extension of an existing town for the benefit of Wales. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite say that Birmingham or the Midlands are the only areas with overspill problems, they are wrong. There are parts of South Wales where industries have decayed, just as there are in North Wales.
Mr. E. Rowlands Mr. E. Rowlands (Cardiff, North)rose—
Mr. Hooson: This is the only speech given from this bench, and it has been punctuated constantly by interruptions from hon. Gentlemen opposite.
On the alternative plan which I have put forward, a great deal of the population would be derived from other parts of Wales. If we are to have a debate in depth about this, that matter should be considered. I am glad to see the right hon. Member for Llanelly nodding his agreement. He will also agree with me that it was my predecessor, Clement Davies, who first put forward the idea of

83
a new town. His complaint was that he could not persuade any Government to do anything about rural depopulation, and that the beauty of a new town, from a politician's point of view, was that it was possible to get money for another purpose and use it for this purpose, without having to come to the House of Commons to get it. It must be admitted that the first reason which drove people to consider the idea of a new town was that it was possible to get the money under the New Towns Act without having to come to Parliament to ask for it.
Mr. Rowlands: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me where in Wales there is an overspill problem? The City of Cardiff, for example, is one of the smallest in the country.
Mr. Hooson: If the hon. Gentleman reads Reports he will see that Cardiff has an overspill problem estimated at tens of thousands for the 1980s.
Mr. Rowlands: In that case, we need only extend the boundaries of the City of Cardiff.
Mr. Hooson: What is vastly important is the setting up of communications. That is why the hon. Member for Hereford was right in talking about the importance of a road from Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth. I know that a double carriageway road has been proposed by the Conservatives. I should much prefer to see a modern motorway, because we need those sorts of communications in Wales, and we must plan for the future.
What we are doing at present is to lay down a pattern of communications for Wales which suits the past. If we are to plan for the future the kind of Wales which we want by the end of the century, our pattern of communications must be different, because at the moment it merely satisfies the past pattern. The great difficulty which faces all Government Departments is that of having money available for futuristic schemes, as opposed to patching up existing roads and developing roads where there are existing bottlenecks.
I think that this, again, is a question of priorities, but without better internal roads I am sure that we will continue
84
to lose population. I think that the hon. Member for Carmarthen is right about this. The Severn Bridge will result in a considerable degree of depopulation in South Wales unless we plan the roads inside Wales as well to make it attractive for industrialists to come in. As I jocularly said to the hon. Gentleman in another context some time ago, the Severn Bridge will do for Wales what the Channel Tunnel is likely to do for England. It is likely to take away some of its population unless we plan an attractive, modern development, particularly with regard to roads.
I do not believe that the Secretary of State for Wales will disagree with me in this respect. This is not to argue against the Severn Bridge. I am all in favour of it. It is an argument in favour of Wales itself having the will, the instruments—through a Parliament—and the means available to plan internally to take advantage of the beneficial effects which can come from such developments as the Severn Bridge.
I should like to see in the Government's plan for the future a picture of Wales as they see it towards the end of this century. In this context there are great possibilities in the development in Mid-Wales, but surely hon. Members will agree that the major consideration in the development of Mid-Wales must be Wales as a whole? The Secretary of State got his job because the Government recognised that Wales was a nation, that she was an entity, and that she had certain rights. How, therefore, can the right hon. Gentleman argue—I have not heard him personally, but his predecessors certainly did—that we can settle the problem of Mid-Wales only by solving Birmingham's problem? There are many other problems which could be settled.
I think that the plan for Mid-Wales is a valuable contribution to the literature, but this has to be considered in much greater depth against the vision of the kind of country, and the kind of life within it, that we want to see in the future.
5.42 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Probert: I shall not follow the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) into the intricacies of the problem of setting up a new town, but I shall in a moment deal

85
with the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Wales.
I would be failing in my duty if I did not say at once that a number of Members who represent constituencies in South Wales, and particularly the Valleys, cannot feel at all complacent about the Government's policy on deflation. It is of great concern to us that the immediate effects of these policies are what we feared and what we feared in the immediate past. They are having a serious effect on the so-called development districts.
We cannot deny—and I say this with all approbation of my Government—that since they took office at the end of 1964 all their intentions and their legislation have been directed towards one end, namely, the deployment of industry and labour on a far more rational basis than existed during the 13 years of Tory Administration, and certain measures which have been put into effect are showing results in this respect.
I want to touch on one or two matters, particularly in relation to the coal mining industry. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch), who spoke so feelingly about the restriction and contraction of this industry. Many of us have spoken about this on a number of occasions. I did so within months of of the Government taking office, and I shall not elaborate on the points that I made then. I am particularly pleased that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power is present, and I hope that he will listen to what I have to say.
No one praises more than I do the contribution which the National Coal Board and the N.U.M. have made towards easing the problems of contraction in the mining industry. This in itself justifies the nationalisation of the industry, because only a nationalised industry of this calibre could have faced and dealt with this tremendous problem. It is only because there has been co-operation between this great historic N.U.M. and the Board that it has been possible to deal with this almost insuperable problem, and I think that the country as a whole owes them a debt of gratitude.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty said, whereas they have been digesting these closures in the past—
86
and this has been going on for some time—the period of digestion is at an end. The N.U.M., and indeed the N.C.B., cannot face the social problems inherent in pit closures while the economic freeze is having its effect. I therefore appeal to my right hon. Friend, and indeed to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power, to consult the Coal Board to see whether, at least during the period of the economic freeze, pit closures can be halted to give the Board and the N.U.M. an opportunity to digest the present closures.
Reference has been made to the existence of 3,000 vacancies, and the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) said that there were vacancies in certain coal pits. We are all aware that in many cases vacancies are necessary to make pits viable propositions, but we shall not solve the problem of having 3,000 vacancies by closing further uneconomic pits because, as we know, the wastage in closing an economic pit is not very great. I therefore appeal to my right hon. Friend and to my hon. Friend to stop pit closures at least for the duration of the economic deflation.
I was impressed with the remarks of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt), and indeed those of the right hon. Member for Flint, West. They referred to inadequacies in the scheduling of areas in Wales. It was rather cynical of them to say what they did, because it was their Government which de-scheduled four areas. It is rather cynical of them to complain and to suggest that their areas should be scheduled. It is a tragedy that during 13 years of Tory Administration the process of scheduling areas and bringing industry to them, which had been started by the Labour Administrations of 1946 to 1951, was slowed down and eventually halted, because as a result we are suffering disastrous effects in South Wales.
Mr. Gibson-Watt: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can be allowed to get away with that all along the line. Both my right hon. Friend and I were referring to the development areas from the point of view of the tourist industry. The hon. Gentleman will remember that what we complained about was that a large area in South Wales had been left outside the development areas and did

87
not get the benefits which those areas receive. That is the point that we wished to make.
Mr. Probert: I have two comments to make on that. First, why did not the Tory Administration include these areas as development districts? Secondly, if my memory serves me right, the right hon. Member for Flint, West referred to this in an industrial sense. However, I do not want to prolong the debate by dealing with that in detail.
One of the evil results of the slowing down to which I have referred is that the administrative machinery and the personnel machinery for bringing industry to development areas has slowed down to such an extent that in South Wales the preparation and acquisition of industrial sites is proceeding far too slowly. I hope that my right hon. Friend will see whether he has sufficient money and machinery to cope with the vast developments that will take place in the next five or ten years if the Government's legislation is made fully effective.
I want to take this opportunity of expressing the thanks of my constituents to my right hon. Friend for the speedy action which he, together with the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary, took in connection with the tragic happenings at Aberfan. The fact that the Secretary of State for Wales—a member of the Cabinet, representing the Prime Minister—was able to reach the site so quickly was of inestimable value to all those who were organising the rescue operations—the local authority, and so on—and, to some extent, those who were bereaved. I want to express my thanks, because this tragedy happened just over the mountain from my constituency.
My right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Welsh Office are veritably at the grass roots of the problems of Wales. I want to refer to the question of responsibility, which was mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. Some of my colleagues and I feel some concern at the fact that my right hon. Friend does not have sufficient responsibility in connection with certain departments—especially the Board of Trade. This is no disrespect to the Minister of State, Board of Trade, who has been present for most of the debate.
88
I know of his great sympathy for the problems of Wales. I pay tribute to the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of State for the fact that on every occasion that I have approached them with specific problems I have received help and assistance of all kinds.
But to the extent that the Secretary of State for Wales is at the grass roots of Welsh problems, once policy has been decided in the Cabinet and it has been decided that certain advanced factories should be erected, is my right hon. Friend consulted about their siting or is he merely told by the Welsh Section of the Board of Trade that a certain number of advanced factories will go to Wales—at sites A, B, C, D, E. F and G? Is he consulted before these factories are sited? If he is not, he should be. Once a decision has been made on policy grounds the Secretary of State should have oversiting responsibility in order to decide where these new factories should go and where industrialists should be persuaded to go. It is not the Board of Trade that carries the can if anything goes wrong; it is the Secretary of State for Wales. I hope that he will consider this question. It is not so much a question of consultation or co-operation with the Departments for which the Minister is concerned, but the question of his over-siting responsibility. He must have a voice in the decision that is made. Many of my friends and I feel very strongly about this.
On the question of derelict sites, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), who was Minister of Housing and Local Government in the previous Administration. He was very sympathetic on the question of the clearance of derelict sites and encouraged local authorities to do all they could in that respect. Unfortunately, as the figures have shown, time and time again he did not receive the necessary response. I pay tribute to him because his sympathies were with us 100 per cent. and he did all he could in this regard. As has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty, it took a terrible tragedy like that at Aberfan to persuade people to support the efforts that have been made for many years by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend is tackling the subject of valuation anew.

89
What he said today on this matter is very encouraging, but I am told that if a certain site is up for clearance and the district valuer is brought in and says that after the site has been cleared its value will be greatly enhanced, since this means a lower grant the local authority is inhibited from clearing the site.
The value of the site may be enhanced because of its potential industrial use, but it may be vacant for many years, during which time the local authority will nevertheless have to go on paying interest on the capital which it probably has had to find. The district valuer is right in pointing this out, but this should not operate as an inhibition, in a purely financial sense, to the local authority carrying out the scheme.
It may be discovered, on the other hand, that the cost of clearing a site will be so great that it is not worth clearing. I should like to know whether sufficient attention is being paid to the amenity value which exists after a site is cleared.
I now turn briefly to the question of industrial training. We all appreciate that the Government's efforts in this regard do not match up to the needs, but there are very important reasons why the situation cannot be met. There is the question of finding appropriate personnel and appropriate training sites, and so on. I have had cases in which personnel applying for training had been offered posts in the Llanelli training centre although it is almost impossible for people to travel from Aberdare to Llanelli. I know that mention has been made of the centre at Port Talbot, but we must have a proper centre for the Valley area.
I want my right hon. Friend to be satisfied that he has the fullest co-operation with the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Trade in respect of investment within industry. Let us imagine that an industrialist decides to come into a certain area and informs the local authority and the Board of Trade that in two years' time his factory will be opened, and that he will require 300 or 400 men and women. What happens when the two years have elapsed? People may have been expecting employment in that factory but they may be found to be unsuitable because they are not skilled or semi-skilled. The industrialist must
90
therefore import outside labour, and the poor souls who have been signing on the dole year after year will find that their hopes are squashed.
I suggest that immediately such a venture is put forward other industrialists should be persuaded to take on personnel from the area concerned and train them, taking advantage of the facilities provided by the Government under their training schemes. If this were done at the earliest possible stage, it would meet the situation.
Lastly, I want to refer to roads and communications in Wales. For many years I have been of the opinion that many of the inducements which are being put forward to attract industrialists into Wales have been nullified because of the lack of communication facilities in certain areas. I do not know what studies have been made of this subject but it is important that, apart from the provision of investment grants to industries to come to these areas, the infrastructure of the areas should be fully studied. I suggest, therefore, that, in any consideration of transport and communications in and congested and over-employed areas, or in the development areas, he should give priority to the development areas. If we can pay attention to the improvements in the infrastructure of these old industrial areas, the Government policy of redeployment of labour and industry will have a much better chance of success.
6.0 p.m.
Mr. Gwynfor Evans: The Seoretary of State made a very important announcement, which other hon. Members have followed up, about the methods of dealing with the spoil heaps or the coal tips which are making our land hideous. This is something on which public conscience was awaked by the terrible Aberfan disaster. These coal tips are all over Southern Wales; there are some in my constituency and probably in those of other hon. Gentlemen. I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about steps which the Government intend to take to try to remove at least some of the tips and to deal with some of the more urgent aspects of the problem.
I would urge the Government that, in tackling this problem they should try to develop a comprehensive policy for tip clearance all over Wales and one which will mean not just the removal of some

91
of these tips—I recognise that there are many hundreds—but the whole lot. Some, of course, take their place in the landscape without making the countryside too hideous, but so many of them are scars on our countryside and prevent the attraction of industry and industrial development.
If this were done on a large scale, it would be costly and the removal of the spoil itself would be a difficult and big problem, but perhaps the tips could be turned to good account economically. This material could perhaps create car parks or sites for buildings, light industry and so on and could even be taken some distance to fill up waterlogged land and to make up uneven land. It would therefore add to our national assets in the same way in which the Netherlands has added to its assets by recovering land which had been under water.
Perhaps the challenge posed by this disaster gives us the impetus and opportunity to think of it in this way. For those which need not be moved, perhaps the Forestry Commission could decide which tips could be planted with trees. This has been done in the north-east of England, for instance, and in other countries as well. Much of this might be done where it would not affect land drainage or give rise to flooding problems. But this gives us the opportunity of creating pieces of flat land in Wales, which are not often to be found.
It would be a good thing to use this approach and to consider how to use the spoil to help in our road-building programme. Part of this material might be useful in that connection. The Government would do well to look at the latest techniques of road mechanics and soil engineering to tackle this problem in an ambitious way, following the start which has now been made. Perhaps this could be considered against a background of clearing other industrial sites altogether. There is a very good scheme in the lower Swansea Valley and it would be a good thing if that were applied to the whole country.
I now turn to the more general industrial situation. As the employment figures show, despite the very optimistic speech of the Secretary of State, the position in Wales is still worse than that in any
92
English region and nearly twice as bad as in England as a whole. That is the position, whatever we may say about steps which are being taken or are to be taken. This is not new for us. It is the position which has existed as long as most of us can remember. It is certainly the only position which I can remember.
This position is shown by the population figures. A Question of mine the other day revealed that the excess of births over deaths in Wales over the years since 1921 was 575,000. There was no year in that period in which the excess of births over deaths was less than 30,000. Yet the total growth of our population in Wales over that period of 45 years is only the equivalent of the total of one of those years' excess of births over deaths. This shows that during that period at any rate we have not had the development we needed.
Is there any other part of Britain where fewer men are at work now than 12 years ago? That is the situation in Wales. This again reflects the great need for development in that country. A decline is likely. If action is not taken more radically than now suggested, it is likely to gain momentum. The hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies) suggested that we may, by the end of the decade, need about 100,000 or even more new jobs.
I gave that figure as well when I first spoke in the House four months ago and it was based on the same kind of calculation which the hon. Gentleman used. When one faces a problem of that magnitude, one is bound to consider methods which are out of the ordinary. I feel that the methods which the Government are now relying on are insufficient to deal with a problem of this size.
In this kind of situation, redeployment as the Government envisage it is a non-starter. It is only a euphemism for unemployment. What is being done? What has been done? We have heard of some new factories and we have heard of millions of sq. ft. of factory building in the future, but what is being done to plan the country? When I have asked about this, the Government's response has been that regional machinery has been set up, but when one asks what that machinery has done, one cannot get a satisfactory reply. Where are the results? What has been produced by this regional machinery

93
in Wales? Is it unproductive machinery? The Government are appealing to everybody to increase production. Cannot there be more productivity in this respect? We need it very badly.
The other reply which they give when ore asks what is being done is a reference to advance factories. These are very good things to have, but we must realise that they will not do more than touch the fringe of the problem. I have no doubt that the Government realise that. They are a positive contribution, but they do not go far enough to meet a problem of the size of that in Wales. This is a tremendous problem which poses a crisis for us in Wales and measures adequate for a crisis situation are needed.
There is to be one of these advance factories in my constituency, in Llandybie, but it will have an area of only 10,000 sq. ft., and may give work to about 40 people. That does not touch the problem locally, and when this is applied elsewhere in the country one sees that something more is needed. This is too much like putting a sticking plaster on a gangrenous wound.
Why has this situation developed in Wales? Why does it exist? Hon. Members opposite will not agree, but I feel that the Government—and this applies not only to this Government but to the whole series of Governments—are not serious about Wales. They do not take Wales seriously. They have no policy for Wales to counter the effect of their own general policy. We have heard of the effects of their own general policy on Wales and elsewhere in other debates. In Wales the effect of the deflationary measures is to make far worse a situation which is already bad.
These deflationary measures were taken because of an English situation, not because of a Welsh situation. They were taken to meet the position in this part of this State. So was a measure such as the Anglo-Irish trade agreement. This was taken to suit English needs and not to suit Welsh needs. If we had complete responsibility for Welsh policy under a Welsh Government, nobody responsible for Welsh policy would have thought of making an agreement such as the Anglo-lrish trade agreement. The Welsh farmers are very hard hit by it, and by the credit squeeze, so hard hit that they are not now getting for their livestock even the
94
capital which they put into it. That is the situation over the last four months, and it is a very serious situation.
Much of the trouble arises from the balance-of-payments crisis, which is one of the root causes of this crisis. It certainly has nothing to do with us in Wales. It is relevant to the policy followed by the Government in foreign affairs and particularly in defence and overseas spending on military matters. We have the Chancellor's word for this. According to Der Spiegel a year ago, he said to that magazine,
"There would not have been a sterling crisis if we had not had to bear so much of the burden of defence abroad We would have restored our balance of payments if we had not had to bear this heavy load."
It is because of this expenditure on defence abroad that we have to bear this burden in Wales. Possibly the heaviest burden caused by the big power ambitions and imperial nostalgia of this Government is borne by the Welsh people.
Mr. Alan Williams: Does not the hon. Member realise that even if Wales had self-government, the English Government would still exist and would still have their own foreign policy—and that the impact of this on the balance of payments would still affect Wales, for example, through the car industry and through orders for steel?
Mr. Evans: I appreciate that point, but we should then have a Government to deal with it. At the moment we have no Government to deal with it. We urgently need an Administration in Wales which will deal with these changing situations.
Let us consider the effect on Wales even of measures taken in areas contiguous to Wales. Often measures are taken without the interest of Wales in mind. Indeed, quite the contrary. Hon. Members have referred to the Severn Bridge. A decision was taken to build this bridge and, having built it, it was then decided to have an inquiry to see what the effect on Wales would be. Apparently one does not ask before building the bridge what the effect on Wales will be; one asks afterwards. This is typical of the Government's attitude. Another example is that of the proposed

95
new town in Mid-Wales. The Government are inquiring into the effects of building that new town in Mid-Wales-two years after the announcement by our first Secretary of State that such a town would be built.
I suggest that the Government are far too complacent about the situation in Wales. They perhaps think that they have the country in their pockets. But I warn them that the Liberals thought that 60 years ago, and they have melted away like the snows of yesteryear. Certainly if the Government continue, as now, without any planned action for Wales, they will lose support among the Welsh people.
What about planning? We have had it announced more than once in the past year or more that the plan is to be published in the near future. Now we hear that it is to be published some time next year. This year, next year, some time. Will it ever come? One begins to wonder. The strongest indictment of the Government's attitude and policy to Wales is that we have not yet a plan of action for Wales. If the situation which exists in Wales were found to exist in England, there would have been action long ago. In fact, when a situation not nearly as grave as this arose in the north-east of England three years or more ago, speedy action was taken, a Minister was given responsibility to take action and there was a plan in operation within a year. In Wales apparently there is no need to hurry, there is plenty of time, there is no need to do anything.
Mr. Hooson: Has the hon. Member considered what has happened to the National Plan which the Government produced for the country?
Mr. Evans: That is a very unfortunate precedent. One is not always much better off for having a plan. But we need an effective plan for action in Wales. The National Plan was not a plan of action at all; it was a study of what was likely to happen in future. We most urgently need a plan of action. If we had this plan we should have integrated in it the development of communications, on which more than one hon. Member has touched this afternoon. If we had had a plan of action in Wales we should not have seen rail closures on such a scale
96
and we should not see the cuts which are taking place even now in Wales. They are taking place, even though all the evidence shows that the railways in Wales as a whole are paying their way. That adds to the immorality of the situation.
Mr. George Thomas: I am pleased that the hon. Member has come to this point because he has stated previously that the railways in Wales pay their way. Would he like to tell the House what he was informed by Mr. Hilton of British Railways who explained to him that there is no justification at all for claiming either that they pay their way or that they do not pay their way, because it is impossible on the present system of accountancy to know?
Mr. Evans: I do not know what information the Minister has been given, but in my conversation with Mr. Hilton I took his words as confirming my standpoint in this matter and confirming the evidence which I put in articles and which has never been denied by British Railways. The articles showed that in one twelvemonth period just over two years ago, British Railways in the southern area of Wales made a gross profit of nearly £13 million. I do not know what the net profit was.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Morris): Is not the hon. Member aware that the figures which he saw were for the Cardiff and district area? They showed, on the one hand, receipts for that area and, on the other hand, the outgoings. Since a large part of this traffic is generated in South Wales and goes from one end of the country to the other, is it not obvious that a great deal of expenditure arises not within Wales but outside Wales? Whatever figures he has, he should know that they do not accurately reflect the situation.
Mr. Evans: I am obliged to the hon. Member. I gave gross profits and we do not know what are the net profits. I know that at least 60 per cent. of the traffic, which is mainly goods traffic, on the Western Region originates in Wales, and the Western Region is the most important region commercially in Britain.
Mr. John Morris: Will the hon. Gentleman now withdraw the idea, which

97
he has been canvassing from one end of Wales to the other, that these figures represent accurately the railway statistics of Wales?
Mr. Evans: I will withdraw nothing. Instead, I would welcome the publication by the Government or British Railways of these figures. That is the only way to clear the air.
We need an efficient and effective railway system in Wales as well as an adequate road system. At the moment we have neither. Some time ago I asked a Parliamentary Question about the mileage of motorways to be built in Wales in the years 1969 and 1970. I also asked what proportion of the money to be spent on motorways in Britain generally would be spent in Wales. The Answer I got was "Nil"—nothing is to be done in 12 of the 13 counties. Something must be done to put this deficiency right.
It was announced this afternoon that the road west of St. Clears is to be trunked down to Pembrokeshire. That is an important contribution, which I welcome. However, I urge the Government to look more closely at the road from Swansea to Carmarthen and on to St. Clears because part of that road is still only an 18-foot carriageway and it some-tines takes some hours to do the nine miles from Carmarthen to St. Clears. We cannot expect to have industrial development in Wales if this state of affairs persists.
If it is argued that the Government cannot find the money to build these roads, the answer is simple. It was estimated by a consultant that the proposed new town for Mid-Wales would cost about £137 million. One could do a lot of road building with that sort of money. A road is urgently needed to run from Cardiff, on to Wrexham and across to Carmarthen, and it has been estimated that to build such a road would cost little more than half the amount that might be spent on the proposed new town. I suggest that the building of this and other equally important roads would make a vital contribution to the industrial development of Wales.
We must have Wales developed in a planned fashion. It must be planning which takes into account its needs as a nation with every kind of activity being integrated. We must create conditions
98
in which Wales can be developed as a Welsh national community of Wales. Nothing like this has been attempted by any Government and I very much doubt whether it will be attempted by the present one. Nevertheless, that is what we need and what must ultimately be done.
In any event, London is not the place from which to govern Wales. It is the overgrown centre of an empire on which the sun may have now set, although the ethos and habits of an empire persist and Britain is still regarded as one nation. Wales should be controlled from Wales and not from London—not as if London were still the centre of a great imperial régime. Even the Prime Minister likes to think himself a great world statesman. I fear that for Wales to go on being governed in this fashion is not relevant these days, and that this country is too often merely regarded as too much of a nuisance.
Even the most well-intentioned Ministers—and the Ministers at present at the Welsh Office are indeed well-intentioned and able—cannot hope to cope with the pressures that exist. They are faced with the Government's economic failure in Wales. Indeed, a whole series of Governments have failed in this direction and this failure is attributable to a political failure. Since the failure is political, the remedy must, therefore, be political, too—and the answer is to move the governing of Wales to Wales. Only a government of the Welsh nation in Wales will develop a Welsh economy which is suited to the needs of Wales.
I have no doubt that there will be a powerful rearguard action in some parties to prevent this from happening. Nevertheless, today the Welsh are beginning to think independently and are becoming free in their minds. Once they are free mentally, national freedom will follow as sure as day follows night.
6.25 p.m.
Mr. G. Elfed Davies: I have no intention of commenting on the remarks of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans), who, as usual, took us on one of his regular rambles through the highways and byways of Wales, demonstrating his prehistoric nationalistic tendencies. Instead, I wish to deal with some of the major problems facing Wales, and I make no apology for

99
saying that some of them are confronting me and my constituents.
The Secretary of State's speech represented a sound statement of policy, both for the future and the present. I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his colleagues at the Welsh Office on having done so much for Wales in the short time in which the Labour Party has been in power. My right hon. Friend made a number of disclosures and at least one important announcement in connection with measures which the Government have already taken, particularly following the Aberfan disaster—that terrible occurrence which brought to the forefront of the minds of people, not only in Wales but throughout Britain, the dangers that exist in the areas of certain tips. Although in this case we may speak with hindsight, my right hon. Friend's statement will make people think about certain problems to which, in the past, they may have given little thought.
Some hon. Members have been worried by certain assumptions and inferences in connection with the Aberfan disaster. It has been suggested that nothing has been done or said by hon. Members over the years about this problem. My right hon. Friend's speech dealt effectively with those inferences, and his statement proves that at least the present Government intend to do everything practicable to remove this danger from our Welsh valleys.
My right hon. Friend spoke about the difficulty of looking ahead to the future of Wales and indicated that it might be possible for us to think more about the future. He spoke of the pockets of difficulty that have persisted in certain areas in South Wales, and I agree that one cannot divorce Wales from the general pattern of the rest of Britain. The effects of Government measures must be felt on industry in Wales. The decline in basic industries in Wales, industries which for many years have provided the bulk of employment for the Welsh people—I am thinking particularly of coal and steel—has caused very serious problems indeed. The people of many of the valleys have been almost completely dependent on coal mining and the people who for years have earned their livelihood from the mines and who have served the nation well are entitled to special treatment.
100
In my constituency of Rhondda, East, which has been one of the worst hit for very many years, only three collieries remain, and two of those have hanging over their heads the danger of closure. There is no possibility, if this happens, of any other form of employment being available for the people concerned. That is the situation with which we are faced, and Rhondda, incidentally, has been on the list of development districts—or whatever one might call it; it has had various names—since it was established over 30 years ago. Never once has any Government taken it off the list.
The unemployment situation in Rhondda has always been so bad that no Government could afford to take it off the development list. We have been a distressed area, a scheduled area, a special area, a development district, and a development area. We have had all these names, but the work has not come.
I say frankly that despite all the efforts—and I want to be perfectly frank, because successive Governments have attempted to do something—Rhondda has remained an area suffering from high and persistent unemployment throughout that whole period.
The Local Employment Act of 1960, with the further provisions of the 1963 Act, failed to deal effectively with the situation. During the debate on the Second Reading of the 1960 Act, shortly after I came into the House, the then President of the Board of Trade stressed the great benefits that were to be expected in areas of high and persistent unemployment when the Bill became law.
I said in that debate:
"Whatever may be the improvements which the Government have extolled during their presentation of the Bill in this House, its passage will be in vain unless there is a strong, determined and purposeful effort by the Government to implement its provisions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1959; Vol. 613, c. 278.]
That still exists today; and, indeed, the plain fact is that successive Presidents of the Board of Trade, who have been responsible for carrying out the provisions of the Act, have either not been sufficiently serious or they have not been tough enough in seeing that industrialists come into the areas and provide work in development districts scheduled under the Act.

101
I turn now to the mechanics of the local Employment Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) mentioned one problem arising here, and I, too, am not at all happy—indeed, I am very dissatisfied—about the speed with which B.O.T.A.C. deals with applications for grants under the Act, and I have said so in the House on many occasions. My colleague the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iowerth Thomas) has also said the same thing. We are dissatisfied with B.O.T.A.C. over the delay in dealing with some of these matters and I want to pose one or two questions. Is there too much red tape about all this? Further, is social accountability taken sufficiently into consideration by these people, and is B.O.T.A.C. the right sort of body to deal with this problem?
B.O.T.A.C., as its name implies, was set up as an advisory committee, but it is not an advisory committee. Neither the President of the Board of Trade nor any other member of the Government has any right under the Act to question any decision made by the committee. Its decision is final, and cannot be altered, changed or varied in any way. In view of the present situation, this is not good enough.
Under the 1966 Industrial Development Act, a new advisory committee is to be set up. It will be called, I think, the Investment Groups Advisory Committee. I should like to ask my hon. Friend to inquire of the Board of Trade and to consult with his right hon. Friend to find out whether the same conditions exist in the setting up of this new advisory committee as exist in connection with B.O.T.A.C., because if they do, then once again the Act will not be worth the paper it is written on.
I am convinced more than ever before that there is need now for some special action on a matter which was brought to my notice recently by a local authority. Under the Acts, local authorities have power to acquire by compulsory purchase order sites for housing, but they have not power to acquire by compulsory purchase order sites for industrial buildings. This should be looked at seriously. It must be tackled immediately if localities such as Rhondda, which are limited in their sites, are to get the necessary freedom to prepare sites which will be needed.
102
I welcome the provisions of the Industrial Development Act, 1966, because they give full power to the Secretary of State to deal with this matter of building land in Wales. I have asked my local authority to go through the whole of the area and to make its applications to the Secretary of State for Wales. I understand that two applications are to be submitted. I hope that when they come before my right hon. Friend they will be dealt with expeditiously and generously, because there is no excuse, in view of the conditions which exist in Rhondda, for any alternative action to be taken. I am, of course, very pleased that one of the members in the Welsh Office is an old Rhondda boy. I know of his love for Rhondda, and it will help him to do everything possible for the people of Rhondda.
We are having difficulty in getting colliery sites prepared as industrial sites. The Coal Board has not been very helpful. The President of the Board of Trade announced almost 12 months ago that an advance factory was to come to Rhondda. The only site available was one known as the Lady Lewis site. It has been a colliery for very many years and used by the Board for stocking purposes. No coal has been stocked there for about five or six years. The Board will not release it because, it says, "We might need it for a colliery up the valley". Recently there was a move to stock coal from a colliery outside the Rhondda area, and we objected. We in Rhondda want to make it clear to the Welsh Office, to the Board, and to anyone else concerned, that we are not prepared to have our very few and limited sites kept so that the Board can stock coal for collieries in other areas which are far better off for colliery sites than is the Rhondda. We have made it very clear to the Board that we are not prepared to have this practice continue.
Another question is the powers of the Minister under the new Act in regard to the clearance of derelict collieries. Only last week the Western Mail carried an article on the condition of tips in Tylorstown. At this place, children can come off the main road on to colliery tips where there are severe and dangerous hazards. I will say no more on that topic now, because I have already taken it up with the Coal Board and it is only fair to wait now for its reply. These tips are scars of the first Industrial Revolution,

103
and they should be removed to provide sites for new industry in the second Industrial Revolution that is now upon us.
The measures taken by the Government to deal with this recurring economic situation have received a great deal of support from the people of Wales, including those in Rhondda, but talk of redeployment in a place like the Rhondda, where there is no alternative employment at all, is being received there with utter cynicism. The present position differs markedly from the freezes and crises that occurred during the Conservative years of power, because other areas in Britain are now feeling the pinch. On previous occasions, when the Tories were in power, the Rhondda and the industrial valleys of Wales were the first to suffer, and suffered the longest.
The fact remains that unemployment in the Rhondda is now rising and, as has been pointed out more than once in this debate, it is rising in an area where the level is high at the best of times. The unemployment rate in Rhondda has always been almost double the national average. There has never been any argument about that. It has just been accepted, but no one is now prepared to see us going back to the old position again.
Travel to work must also be considered. It has been argued that in the new era of redeployment it will be incumbent on people to travel 12 or 14 miles to their place of work, but in Rhondda we suffer from one very bad feature—there is no railway in one part, and that part is in my constituency. Travelling on the road when the workers at the Treforest factories are coming out at night is a nightmare. The roads are not suitable. It all adds up to extra working time for the men and women involved, and our people are not prepared to accept that situation.
The Prime Minister said, when these various measures were announced, that there would be a sheltering of development areas, and I should like to hear from the Minister tonight what specific measures are being taken to shelter those areas. We are entitled to know.
Are we satisfied that there is sufficient inducement to industrialists to set up in these difficult areas? I am not. I had a booklet sent to me—and I suppose that most hon. Members have had it—extolling
104
the virtues and advantages of Ireland. It states:
"A newly established factory in Ireland pays no Income Tax or Corporation Profits Tax on its profits from exports for its first ten years, and there is a tapering-off period of five more years before the full tax is charged. There is no Capital Gains Tax. Profits on capital may be freely taken out of the country in the parent firm's own currency."
I do not say that we should do exactly that here, but we should see whether something like it can be done for the difficult areas in South Wales, and in other parts of the country.
The Secretary of State referred to the Welsh Economic Council. This is something that directly concerns my hon. Friend the Minister of State, and I assure him that I speak with no personal animosity when I ask: is this Council the right machine? Is its composition the best for meeting the present needs of Wales? As is well known, these councils have been set up in each of the regions in Britain, but there is one fundamental difference between the councils for Wales and for Scotland and those for the other regional areas. In Wales and in Scotland a member of the Scottish Office or of the Welsh Office is chairman. In the other areas, the chairman is an independent person. I make no reflection on the present holder of the position in believing that it would be far better if there were an independent chairman for the Welsh Council.
Let me give my reasons for saying that. First, there is a likelihood of some inhibition being felt by other members of that body when the Secretary of State or the Minister of State is chairing the meeting. My hon. Friend the Minister of State can laugh at that—
Mr. George Thomas: I know the Council. The difference is that I laugh with knowledge. My hon. Friend does not know the Welsh Economic Council as I do. Its members are sturdy, independent, intelligent people, who are certainly not browbeaten by me.
Mr. Hooson Mr. Hooson rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have an intervention in an intervention.
Mr. Hooson: I wanted to ask the hon. Gentleman a question.
Mr. Speaker: One intervention at a time is enough.
Mr. Davies: I still believe that the chairmanship should be looked at. It might be wise for us to compare results from areas having independent chairmen with those of areas where Ministers are chairmen. I do not want to be dogmatic, but I think that it needs looking at.
Returning to the subject of the fears of people residing in areas of high unemployment, I would point out that many of those people are disabled men from the coalmining industry who are unable to travel long distances to a new job, even if a new job could be provided. They comprise the forgotten army of casualties, and are an inevitable consequence of pit closures. The fear is natural in a people who have suffered more than their fair share of unemployment. We in Rhondda very much welcome the idea put forward by the President of the Board of Trade of a new industrial estate just outside our boundary. It will cater for Rhondda unemployed and men made redundant by colliery closures, but we have to face the fact that many pits have closed and we still wait for new factories. The decision was announced in 1965, and people are disturbed that there is no visible sign of any start being made on these projects. These matters are urgent, and I implore the Minister of State and his right hon. Friend to treat them as such.
At a meeting of the Rhondda Trades Council which I addressed recently, a delegate said that in his opinion—which was shared by most of the delegates present:
"This Government will come out right at the end of the day, but we expect that some measures to deal with the particular problems of areas such as ours will now be taken because they need urgent and speedy attention."
I, too, have faith in the long-term success of this Labour Government, but I ask that the immediate problems of areas which have suffered so much in the past shall be dealt with by increased drive and vigour.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order I must remind the House that every long speech prevents from speaking someone else who is anxious to speak. Mr. More.
6.51 p.m.
Mr. Jasper More: As all Welshmen know in their heart of hearts, the true capital of Wales is Shrewsbury, so, as a Shropshire Member, I feel justified in making an intervention in this debate.
The hon. Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. G. Elfed Davies) made reference to Aberfan. While he is still in the Chamber, there are two things I wish to say about Aberfan which I think are of importance to all hon. Members, whether Welsh or English. First, I hope that we shall not allow ourselves to concentrate exclusively on the National Coal Board. There are many potentially dangerous tips in this country which are not the responsibility of the National Coal Board. Secondly, it is essential in the interests of our constituents that we should tackle this subject through our local authorities and through the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Three years ago I was on a Standing Committee where this subject came up. If the hon. Member for Rhondda, East is interested I shall be very happy to give the details and the background and to show how the present legal position stands.
I want briefly to refer to the two subjects of agriculture and industry which, as my constituency is absolutely on the borders of Wales—indeed, owing to the boundary it is intermingled with it—are of common interest to Wales and West Shropshire. None of us who represent agricultural constituencies in that part of the world can help but feel concern about the position which faces livestock farmers in the fat cattle trade, the livestock rearing trade and the sheep trade. I read in the report of my own National Fanners' Union that in October the comparative price of steers was 166s. in 1965 and 150s. in 1966. That is some slight evidence of the catastrophic drop there has been in fatstock prices. In the sheep trade the general experience has been that prices have been anything from 30s. to 40s. less this year than last year.
The chap who has suffered most—this is of great importance to us—is the livestock rearing farmer. In the recent debate on agriculture, the Minister made an announcement of what he was to try to do to help the fatstock farmer. For that, although it may not be a great deal, we

107
are grateful, but it still leaves in suspense the position of livestock rearing farmers. These are family farmers who live among the Welsh and Shropshire hills and they feel first the result of a depression of this kind. In the Agriculture Bill which we are considering upstairs in Committee there are proposals for amalgamations, but this is not good enough. The time has come when some special effort should be made through the Minister of Agriculture for some special provision for family farmers of this type.
I want to say a brief word about industry. I do not think it true that there has been no industrial benefit in this part of the world. In my constituency four years ago an excellent clothing factory was established in Ludlow. That has now developed branches, one in my constituency and one in the adjacent constituency of Brecon and Radnor. It is giving employment to a remarkable number of female employees. There is very little in the way of rail communications in one of the centres to which this industry has moved. It shows what can be done by factories of that kind. I suppose they would be described as light industry, but it is very important industry in these small centres. There is female labour there. That is the type of industry which can and should be encouraged in those areas.
I want to say a word about a question which has become very topical and is relevant to what has been said in this debate about the proposed new town in Wales. We are very conscious of the international boundary which divides England from Wales. We have reached a point in history when these things cannot be considered in isolation on each side of the national boundary. It has been said that there should be a new town in Caersws. As hon. Members will know, in my constituency we have already an established scheme for the new town of Dawley with a population of 90,000. Only this week a report appeared recommending that this new town should be increased to a population of 200,000. That has had the immediate reaction of provoking suggestions as to what should happen in Shrewsbury. The latest Dawley Report says:
"An early decision is required on the future rôle which Shrewsbury will play in the region…Account must also be taken of the effect of any decision on the proposal
108
recently published for the new town in mid Wales."
We have now reached a point when it is essential that these three schemes, Dawley, Shrewsbury and Caersws, should be considered as one proposition because one must react on the other. Unless we are to have confusion they must be considered together. I should like an assurance from the Minister of State that in the decision which has now to be made about Dawley possible reactions on Shrewsbury and Caersws will not be overlooked and that he himself will ensure that he is brought into consultation with the Minister of Housing and Local Government before a final decision is made.
I am grateful for the opportunity of making a short intervention in this debate.
6.58 p.m.
Mr. J. Idwal Jones: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More), because he represents a constituency which might very well have been the capital of Wales. In that case, he would have been a Member for Wales.
Many striking statements have been made this afternoon. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) asked what about Wales of the future. That is what we are talking about. The statements made by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) that no one has been serious about Wales were extraordinary. I have taken a very serious view of Wales since my youth and I shall do so for the rest of my time. I have not been afraid of standing at street corners to see that we shall have social justice in Wales.
Mr. Gwynfor Evans: I appreciate very much the seriousness of hon. Members opposite about Wales, but what I said was that no Government had been serious about Wales.
Mr. Jones: My attitude is very simple. It may appear paradoxical. In the first place I regard Wales as a nation. I regard the people living within the geographical boundaries of Wales as forming the Welsh nation. Whether they speak Welsh or not, they belong to the Welsh nation. So when such people cross the Border it is a serious loss to the Welsh nation.

109
My second point is that people will live where they can earn a living. This is the economic question. On the basis of that economic question, I do not regard Wales as an economic unit, I regard it as an economic region, and I make no apology for that observation. Indeed, it is an economic region within a larger economic region, but just as the larger economic region has a part to play so also has Wales as an economic region its part to play as well.
I do not know whether I shall carry the House with me on my next point, but the hon. Member for Carmarthen asked how Wales can receive the attention it deserves as a part of Britain. Britain is a Common Market and has been one for centuries. There has been freedom of movement, of both labour ard capital between the three kingdoms constituting it. I cannot understand how it is possible to justify the breaking up of the Common Market of Britain and at the same time justify the entry of Wales into the Common Market of Europe as is the policy of Plaid Cymru. I would emphasise that Wales economically never can live in isolation. Not only is Wales an economic region, but it also has economic sub-regions.
I have two or three things to refer to in that connection. There is agriculture, for example, which covers the whole of Wales. But there are large areas of Wales where agriculture is the basis of the economy. Never in the history of Wales has farming been more productive than now. At the same time, farming does not employ as many people as it used to because of mechanisation. So farming will not solve our depopulation problem, and we must seek a solution elsewhere.
Then we have other areas which are not based upon coal. I refer to the great industrial areas of the North-West, such as the slate industry of Carnarvonshire and Merioneth. The slate industry has declined since 1881, the decline becoming very rapid after the First World War and particularly so after the Second World War. So in that part of the country we have industrial areas and an industrial-type population. The problems there are different from the problems in the agricultural areas.
Then we have the coal mining industrial areas, of which Wrexham is an
110
example, and there we have a similar problem—pit closures. One mine has been closed in my constituency. However, I am glad to say that the prospect in the North Wales coalfield is much brighter than it was 12 months ago. It seems that one of our collieries will be breaking through in the very near future. I am sorry to hear about the situation in South Wales, but I am glad to be able to present a different picture from North Wales.
Taking Wales as a whole—the agricultural areas, the slate industry areas and the coal mining areas—there is evidence of change, and because of this we must have planning. I have been very encouraged to find today that hon. Members opposite have come to believe in planning. Every time we pleaded for planning when we were in opposition, we were turned down by the Conservatives. Now they are pleading for us to adopt a system of planning.
One thing that is clear is that the Conservative method of the Local Employment Act, concentrating on pinpoints of unemployment, brought no solution to our problem. I am glad that at last we have a Government who have taken this question up very seriously. Only this month the President of the Board of Trade reported that he had decided to build 21 new advance factories in Britain and that of those six would go to Wales. Six out of 21 is a fair proportion, and it certainly proves that Wales is not the forgotten child of the President of the Board of Trade. On the contrary, it is being given its share.
I do not want to be complacent; I am fully aware of the fact that very much needs and will need to be done, but it is only fair that I should make a brief report about my constituency. Two chapters have been written for Wrexham since the end of the Second World War, and a third chapter has now begun. The first chapter covered the period from 1945 to 1951, when the Government of the day introduced an industrial estate at Wrexham, for the first time diversifying the industry of the area and introducing such industries as textiles and toy making. That was a new experience, and it laid the foundations for development.
Then came the second chapter, from 1951 to 1964, when we had 13 years of

111
Tory rule concentrating on the so called pinpoints of unemployment. Not a single industry was introduced to the area in that period. In 1960 the area was taken off the list of scheduled areas. What is more, the Government decided to sell out the industrial estate. That was the end of the second chapter.
Chapter 3 began in 1964, and the industrial scene started to change, and I am pleased to be able to say that it is is still changing. Firestone came to the industrial estate. It would have had no chance of doing so had there not been a Labour Government with a Secretary of State for Wales sitting in the Cabinet. I know the part that the Secretary of State played in that issue. I am glad to say that another firm, Multi-cables, has decided to introduce a very important factory into the area. That is at one end of my division. At the other end of my division there is to be a Cadbury factory at Chirk. That is at the focal point of two valleys, the Dee Valley and the Ceiriog Valley. The Ceiriog Valley, the old textile and quarrying area, has not had an industry for years. In the next few months we hope to see Cadbury's building a factory at Chirk, employing 500 people, and this will give hope once again to those two valleys. It will also provide employment for people just over the border. That is a remarkable story.
The clerks of Wrexham Borough Council and Wrexham Rural District Council are continually receiving inquiries as to whether they have derelict sites which they have cleared and which are suitable for small industrial sites. When the economy of Wrexham has been put on a sound basis the story will not end there. It will be a bridge, and across that bridge small factories will penetrate from this part of North Wales into the interior as far as Corwen, and perhaps even as far as Bala. That is the nature of the economic advance, and that is the story of the past two years. It gives me great pleasure to relate that story today.
7.11 p.m.
Mr. E. Rowlands: This is my first Welsh day, and I am very grateful to be called. I welcome the very fine account given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, which I thought was cautiously optimistic, but it has been tempered by the remarks
112
of many of my hon. Friends who have expressed genuine concern for certain areas and the employment and redundancy problems. We also welcome and look forward to the publication of the Welsh Plan for which we have waited a very long time. However, I am very disappointed that the Welsh Economic Council's Report and the reports of its panels are not to be published. It would benefit Wales as a whole and create full understanding and participation by the public in the problems of Wales if such reports were published. I regret the announcement at Question Time some time ago that they were not to be published.
There is no need for the Welsh Economic Council's Report to tell of the difficult problems that face Wales, and particularly parts of South Wales. They have been eloquently explained today by many of my hon. Friends. The crisis in the coal industry and the steel redundancy problems are already well known. It would not be for me to add to what has been said. We welcome the Government measures—the advance factory programme, the creation of jobs, the widened expansion of development areas.
What has been expressed very forcibly by many of my hon. Friends is a feeling of unease that the problem has not yet been full conquered, that battle has not altogether been won. We have had the feeling over the past two years that this has been a brilliant and successful holding operation. But we are by no means certain that we have established the true conditions for sustained economic growth in Wales. To find evidence of this we do not need to look much further than, for example, at the rather high unemployment rate. Unemployment is beginning to grow, and the potential redundancy in Wales as a whole is rather frightening.
Are we satisfied that the programme today is sufficient? Are we satisfied that we have a crash programme capable of conquering the problem and sustaining the economic growth? We recognised the difficulties of previous policies with the very important Industrial Development Act, 1966. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. J. Idwal Jones) explained, we are giving up the idea—I think that it was a wrong idea—of pinpointing, of confining industrial development in Wales to very restricted areas.

113
This has been acknowledged, and I wonder, with the very large employment problem we face in Wales, and particularly South Wales, whether the logic of this policy should not be taken to its full conclusion. While we have widened development areas we have excluded on social rather than economic grounds the areas of faster growth in Wales. The right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) made this point about the North-East, and it is for me to say the same about the South-East. I realise the social consequence of the decision taken, but if we are faced with a problem of such magnitude we should not perhaps actively discourage industrial development in what are already the successful growth points in Wales.
I therefore feel that while the priorities must, quite rightly, be given on social grounds to the constituencies of many of my hon. Friends, there is reason to think that we should plan regionally as a whole, and not with some exclusion, as in the case of the Industrial Development Act of 1966. Priority must be given to the Rhondda Valley and to West Wales, but there is reason to feel concern for the areas where there is potential growth which might stagnate or slow down without the advent of further industry. I would hate to feel that this would be the choice that would face Wales, and particularly South Wales. We may be faced with such a major problem that we have to make something of a choice between some migration of people within South Wales and emigration of people out of Wales altogether.
The key question in our debate has surely been whether after this period of deflation we shall have the right conditions in Wales for a steady growth in the economy. It is therefore very important to look at the region's long-term needs and some aspects of the economy which have not been mentioned today. It would be fitting if I mentioned them, representing as I do more of an urban centre and a less industrialised constituency than many of my hon. Friends. I refer to some essential industrial and business services which have not been a normal feature of the Welsh economy. These services, particularly the training and retraining programmes that have been mentioned, are a normal part of a flourishing economy. The fact that only
114
two Government training centres are open is an indication of woeful inadequacy in tackling the problem we face in retraining. Two of my constituents have been waiting for over nine months to enter the Cardiff training centre, and this experience could probably be amplified by other hon. Members.
We need to develop technical education, and last year we saw a considerable expansion in the number of apprentices and apprentice schemes in Wales. We have seen the promotion of the College of Advanced Technology to university status, and there is the possible application of the Treforest College to be a Polytechnic. But the training and retraining, particularly the training of youth, is by no means adequate for future need. Perhaps we shall also find that some Welsh firms are lagging in responding to Government measures. In the Western Mail three days after the 20th July measures, there was reference to Welsh firms which lagged and had no enthusiasm for the new schemes and incentives of the Ministry of Labour. I hope that the Welsh Office does its best to publicise these fully. In terms of industrial and business services, I think of the establishment of an industrial design centre for Wales as an essential addition. Every local authority in Wales has given support to the campaign for one, and many professional people and industrialists in South Wales have supported it. In design and exhibition, in marketing and sales of products in Wales, Welsh industry is very badly served. They need rapid development.
For that reason I wish to mention the importance of considering the development of the capital city of Wales and the centre of Cardiff. I raise this not as a purely constituency matter but as a problem of the chief centre in a region of large industrial development, and also the capital. Cardiff is finding great difficulty in sustaining its rôle and carrying out what should be expected of it in its function as a major centre of an industrial area. It should provide an administrative and university centre. In addition, it should have the efficient docks on which its prosperity has been built over the years. Also, it should serve the social and cultural needs of a very large area. We have not heard much about social and cultural amenities in this debate, but

115
they are an important part of the economic and social fabric of the region for which Cardiff has a prime responsibility.
In its present circumstances, Cardiff is feeling the strain and, I fear, is proving unable to sustain such a rôle. I ask the Welsh Office, therefore, to conduct, as part of the preparation of the Welsh Economic Council's report, a detailed study of the rôle and function of the capital city in the life and organisation, economic, social and cultural, of the region which it serves. In this study, I ask that attention be directed to four specific factors, which, though already familiar, must be taken into account.
The first is the need for modern industrial and business services centred in Cardiff to be encouraged in every way, for example by the encouragement of special services such as industrial design centre, and so on. Secondly, this should be combined with the maintenance of modern efficient docks and a declaration by the Government of an investment programme for the South Wales ports, and particularly for Cardiff.
Thirdly, in considering the organisation of local government as a whole in Wales, we should take into account the nature and range of services required in the area which Cardiff serves, and in so doing re-draw the boundaries to match the modern realities of the area. I ask the Welsh Office seriously to consider the possibility of establishing a Greater Cardiff Council which would have the rôle and function in South Wales which the Greater London Council has in the south-east of England.
Fourth, I ask the Welsh Office to encourage the development of the Cardiff city centre. Again, I ask this not purely for constituency reasons but because Cardiff is at the centre of an important region and should, therefore, be developed in order to perform the proper planning, social and cultural functions which the region needs, taking into account the expansion of its university, and taking into account not only the expansion of administration in Wales but the inclusion of offices sent to the region under the Government's decentralisation policy.
In a recent Circular issued by the Welsh Office, it was suggested that
116
priority in town centre development would be given to towns in the development areas. I feel that priority might well be given to the City of Cardiff also, as capital city and as the centre of the region.
For these reasons, I raise the matter of Cardiff City itself somewhat as an offshoot of this debate, though an important one. Quite rightly, in the next few months, all eyes will be on the problems of unemployment and redundancy, but in the longer term the problems of the advancement of services, particularly industrial and business services, and the social and cultural amenities of the area will remain a very significant factor in developing the future prosperity of Wales.
7.23 p.m.
Mr. Leo Abse: The trenchant and controversial suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands) strike a response in all of us who have an interest in Cardiff, even though we come from other constituencies. They are bound to attract our interest, for my hon. Friend seems to want to make his city not just a city among others but genuinely a capital city which acknowledges its responsibilities and obligations to the whole region which it serves.
However, I shall not follow my hon. Friend along his imaginative course. I shall return to the problems which have preoccupied us very largely during this debate, how to deal with the surplus labour which, clearly, will come into existence in Wales, how we are to provide the jobs which will be needed, and the scale on which they will be needed. If I do not take time giving considerable praise to the Secretary of State for Wales and the Welsh Office, they will understand that this is not out of churlishness but out of consideration for other hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate. I wish to make my speech as short as possible.
To come to the heart of the matter, I revert to the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Conway 'Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies), who raised the question which must concern us all: how many jobs will be required during the next five years? When my hon. Friend mentioned a figure of 100,000 jobs being required, my hon. Friend the Minister of

117
State intervened to ask on what that figure was based. If my hon. Friend the Member for Conway was peddling some of the specious statistics produced by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans), I can well understand the Minister of State being prompted to intervene as he did. Nevertheless, many of us are concerned when we remember that a quarter of our working force is still employed, substantially, in two major industries.
The National Coal Board is proceeding with its closures. Its pricing policy is reducing the demand for Welsh coals. Everything points to a drop of 40 per cent. in the productive work force at the pits, and the total fall in employment in the industry is bound to be very much greater. We are all deeply conscious that in the steel industry there has been, to put it kindly, an extravagant use of manpower and that in conditions of stiff international competition and the new pressures of technological change, it is not too pessimistic—indeed, it may be optimistic—to think in terms of at least 12,000 steel workers at present employed not being needed five years hence.
In addition, there will be a fall in the number of workers employed on British Railways. The number of jobs will necessarily fall as the coal industry concentrates production geographically and as modernisation reduces the need for railway manpower. Employment opportunities are bound to shrink in Wales. There is the continuing decline of employment opportunities in heavy chemicals, shipbuilding and ship-repairing as well.
Since figures are challenged, and since we are not apparently to have the statistics prepared by the Economic Council, may we be told whether it is correct that the total number of jobs likely to be lost in the next five years will be in the region of 40,000 to 45,000? I ask this question in the context of the changes about which we are all concerned, changes necessary to improve the technical efficiency and profitability of our Welsh industries. These are changes which, perhaps, should not be avoided. The miners have faced such changes in their industry, as everyone has said, with great courage. They are changes which Wales is ready to accept, but only on certain conditions.
118
We must take into account, also, the natural rate of population growth. We all hope that net emigration will certainly not be more than it has been in the last decade, and we assume that with our more egalitarian family structure, there will be work opportunities for women growing at the rate at which they have grown hitherto. During the spring of this year, Gerald Manners, a lecturer in geography at Swansea, suggested that the potential labour force would increase from 699,000 in 1964 to 720,000 in 1971. Is this right or wrong?
It is not good enough merely to dismiss these suggestions and figures as ill-founded. We are entitled to know what projection the Welsh Office has made and what the basis for it is. Otherwise, apprehensions are bound to grow. I am doing no more than put these facts to the House. I am not putting them dogmatically. Indeed, I incline to think that the figures I quote are an under-estimate. Adding those two factors together means that within the next five years we will require at least 60,000 to 65,000 new jobs, or about 9,000 jobs a year. We will need more if we project to 1981, but I shall not weary hon. Members as far as that tonight.
If we need 9,000 jobs a year, are we likely to get them on past or present performance? I dispute it. For the decade 1953 to 1963, the work force of South Wales increased by about 36,000 per annum. That figure has been cited in many quarters, but when it is examined we have to realise that nearly all that increase was in female labour. About 32,000 out of those 35,600 jobs were filled by female labour. This means, if these figures are right, that the net male employment gain over the past decade was less than 400 a year, and this during a period when steelworks like Llanwern were being assembled.
It is quite clear that if these figures are anything like correct there is justification for the forebodings which have been expressed today. They clearly indicate that we must have some form of crash programme for attracting new male-employing manufacturing and service industries. This is not an easy task. I suggest that despite the measures which have been taken, it has not yet been faced effectively.

119
I know that each one of us will have his constituency interests and may urge them, but I know, too, that the contention of the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch), despite the well-deserved rebuff from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) when the right hon. Gentleman complained about his area not being within a development area, and the contention which was urged by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North that consideration has to be given to where we can have our growth points in order to maximise the degree of employment in Wales, is a challenge to the Government.
It is no good yielding to constituency interests here and there. It is no use spreading factories throughout Wales in response to the appeals of different people. To meet the challenge of this large number of jobs which we require, we are not necessarily selecting the area which is most likely to help a dynamic economy to come into existence in Wales.
On the face of it, one could ask why Cardiff, for example, should be classified as a development area. If one looks at the employment figures, why classify Newport, or Cwmbran, in my constituency? Why classify Monmouth or Chepstow? These, however, may be precisely the areas that should come within the development area. That was the argument of the National Economic Development Council when it pleaded for the designation of growth points.
The White Papers on Central Scotland and the North-East accepted the need for growth points. Without arguing the case for North-East Wales, with which I am not so familiar, I believe that despite the constituency pressures that may be set up there is an overwhelming case for South-East Wales, which is the natural area for economic growth, to become a development area so that it may spread and propagate out of that area for the benefit of the marginal and peripheral areas around it.
We have to look to the economic advantages of a region of South-East Wales which by the 1970s, with its bridge and its roadway system, will have a compact but discontinuous urban belt from Bath to Barry and a market of between 3½ and 4 million people. These two urban
120
regions will be interdependent to the north and south of the upper Bristol Channel. I prophesy that before long we will have Welsh days that are not specifically Welsh and that we will not resent interruptions and interventions from other hon. Members from this side—they will not be from the benches opposite—who represent the other side of Severnside. This is an inevitable trend. Indeed, it is already happening.
It is important to recognise the advantages for making the South-East area a growth point. Whereas the development of manufacturing and distributive activities is inhibited by the small size of the market in South Wales or by the small size of Bristol individually, the picture becomes totally different once we begin to think of the whole region together. The relative isolation of South Wales from the rest of the country served as a disincentive to using South Wales as a base for serving national markets. The road systems which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has indicated are being yet further developed will surely, within the next five years, create a situation in which it takes, perhaps, little more than two hours to travel to Birmingham and not much more to London.
Is there in existence, therefore, a growth plan of this character? I know that the Board of Trade, to whom we look for both the long-term future and the immediate position, has come in for heavy criticism during this debate. I believe, however, that it is a question not only of the numbers of officials in Wales but of their quality. Faced with a challenge of these dimensions, it is high time that the Board of Trade, in its operation in Wales, should be rejuvenated by young, virile, active people who would be able to respond to the great challenge that faces us. There is no question in my view that however well the services may have been given in the past, it is necessary to bring in people with dynamism who could help to attract industry to the area.
I realise that there are difficulties for the Board of Trade in Wales. The Department has had to overcome the miserable inheritance of the rundown that was started by the Tories. We cannot, however, rely on that as an alibi and we must act on the situation as it is and

121
expand the operation of the Board of Trade activities so that we can meet the type of challenge which is in existence as a consequence of the tremendous number of new jobs that we require.
So much for the long term. What of the short term?
Mr. Raymond Gower Mr. Raymond Gower (Barry)rose—
Mr. Abse: The hon. Member will have plenty of time later.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. G. Elfed Davies) has mentioned, when the July measures were introduced we were promised that Wales would be protected. We understand the difficulties, but what is the nature of the protection that will come into existence? It is quite clear that if on top of all the existing difficulties the pit closures are to continue as originally planned, there will indeed be dark days for Wales.
My hon. Friends the Members for Aberdare, Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) and for Cardiff, North have all pleaded, as I plead, that we need a slowing down of pit closures as part of the protection to which Wales has a right if the promise of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is to become a reality. I hope that during this time of economic strain there will be no question that the programme as planned will continue and that on top of the existing unemployment we have disgorged upon us people who are unable to find work as a result of pit closures.
Nor do I think that during this short period we can do anything but demand from the Minister of Power that there should be co-ordination so that during this period there is no question of steel workers being placed through a process being called redeployment, but which could become unemployment. It is essential that if we have a short-term economic problem, during this period there should not be redundancies from these basic industries. Fortunately, the very fact that they are nationalised or partly nationalised means that some measure of control is left in the hands of the Government.
In my constituency we have suffered during recent months disturbing redundancies. My constituency understands, and expresses its view that if a country
122
like this country has, in fact, been spending more than it earns there comes a time when its credit goes and there is a need for recovery and, with loyalty, it will wait to see how the Labour Government tries to pull us through these difficulties.
What we will not tolerate, what the people of South Wales will not tolerate, will be humbug which will tell them that men are made workless to be redeployed, and then find they are lengthily unemployed. There is a great responsibility upon the Secretary of State for Wales and on the Minister of Power to see to it that there is sufficient coordination to make certain that in these basic industries at least we do not get an exacerbation of the unemployment problem, which could be so grave, and which evokes in South Wales such tragically terrible memories.
7.41 p.m.
Mr. Clifford Williams: The Welsh Planning Board, in its last Report, said:
"One of the most vital and rewarding tasks of the Welsh Planning Board will be to see that new life is brought to the development areas so that the people of the industrial valleys may share to the full in all the benefits of economic expansion."
But what have we got? Nearly 40,000 unemployed or estimated to be unemployed by the end of the year, double the percentage of the national average, and loss of jobs caused by the continuing contraction of some of our basic industries.
We cannot be complacent in this situation, and I am quite sure that the Welsh Office is not complacent. It has become an urgent necessity to steer new enterprises to the areas where employment is contracting and communities are in grave danger of declining.
It is essential in exercising a policy of industrial development that communications and facilities should keep pace with the industrial expansion. All of us have been pressing for a greater measure of urgency in solving the present road problems. On the A.467, from Newport to Brynmawr, there has hardly been any major road construction for the last 40 years. There are 22 miles of roads to connect up the Heads of the Valley Road and 15 miles of this road run through my constituency where there are more steep

123
hills and tortuous bends, which produce more road hazards, than there are in most parts of the country. Two steep hills at Llanhilleth, known for many years as Halfshaft Hill, have caused tremendous delays from time to time.
There are 20,000 vehicles using those roads every day, four times more than the Ministry of Transport recommended as the maximum. The mile and a half of new road between Newbridge and Crumlin, in the Abertillery constituency, has already been sanctioned and will solve some of the problem, but it will require from ten to twenty times that amount to remove those dangers and perils. If we want good communications, safety and industrial expansion, a new road is an urgent necessity.
I do not expect my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to wave a magic wand and say that it will be done tomorrow. After all, there are so many urgent problems needing his attention, as there have been in the short two years he and his predecessor have been in office in the Government. The blame lies fairly and squarely on the party opposite for 13 long, wasted years when we "never had it so good" in the so-called affluent society—and nothing was done. That is the tragedy, and now we are faced with major cuts in our bus services which will inflict greater hardship on the travelling public and have some effect on the employees of the bus companies. This, then, is the plight that we are faced with in Abertillery constituency.
I now turn to the spoil heaps, or old colliery tips. The shocking tragedy of Aberfan, which aroused the conscience of the nation and, indeed, of the whole world, as has been mentioned already today, has caused widespread fear and apprehension among the people of our industrial valleys. First, however, let me commend the prompt action which the Secretary of State for Wales and the National Coal Board have taken and their prompt manner of doing it, whereby they are actively engaged in examining and probing these potential death traps to try to allay these fears. But those of us who have lived among our people, and with these ugly, potentially dangerous monstrosities, will never be satisfied till these tips are removed.
124
In my constituency 480 acres of good land are covered by the tips. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans)—I am sorry that he is not present—for mentioning the question of the Cwmtillery tip, in my area. I only hope he knows where the Cwmtillery tip is. I have seen two rows of miners' cottages, in years gone by, be completely demolished, either through subsidence, causing mountains to move, or a combination of tips plus subsidence, and, in my area, poor people left to their misery without a penny of compensation.
Probably the whole of their life's savings, invested in their little homes, vanished, while those responsible—I say this very deliberately, as an old miner of 40 years' standing—the "blood-sucking" former colliery owners who caused such devastation raked in their ill-gotten gains and lived in more salubrious areas. They did not work the rich coal seams of South Wales. They plundered them, and made their fortunes—and then spewed their muck almost on our back doors.
If those 480 acres of spoil heaps could be cleared away, three very important and desirable happenings would take place, and they could be repeated in most of our mining towns. First, there would be removed dangerous potentialities. Secondly, the outlook of the area would be improved. Thirdly, it would provide good land for industrial expansion, which would stop the drift of manpower from the district by providing employment for our people, who do not want to leave the warm community life of the valleys.
This, of course, requires a D-day operation and a fair amount of money. I see nothing wrong in asking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to take the necessary steps immediately to stop any further payments in interest money, and to recover retrospectively the money which has already been paid to the former colliery owners who are wholly responsible for the defilement of our beautiful valleys. That is only common justice. I would prefer this method of financing this operation than calling upon the taxpayers of the country to foot the bill.
If this could be arranged, and the former colliery owners made to pay, we could, by way of interest, transport these huge mounds of muck on to their own

125
back gardens and let them live with it for the next 100 years. The Secretary of State for Wales would earn the eternal gratitude of the people of the industrial valleys.
7.49 p.m.
Mr. Donald Coleman: After the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Clifford Williams) I fear that my own efforts on this occasion will probably be dissipated into thin air.
There have been references in the House today to the black shadow that fell upon Aberfan. Once again, the people have been reminded of the real and true cost of coal and the way in which it has been dragged from the ground beneath Wales. Aberfan has also quickened the conscience of the people of Wales to the need to do something about these ugly mounds of waste which litter the valleys up and down the Welsh coalfield. We are glad that the Secretary of State took such prompt action at the time of that dreadful disaster, and we are glad, too, to have heard from him of the other measures which are being taken to see to it that our people do not live in the peril of the shadow of these mounds of muck to which my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery has referred.
Again, Aberfan has reminded us of the difficulties with which the coal mining community in South Wales has had to contend, resulting in a sharp contraction of the industry, which has created for us many difficulties of redeployment. I hope that the country will notice and remember the manner in which members of the mining community have dealt with the problem which has been placed upon them and contrast it with the complaints which we hear now from some other industries which are becoming affected.
The changes which are taking place in British industry and the effects which they have upon the employment position of the British people affect Wales and its people equally. Those who imagine that Wales can opt out of these changes delude themselves and do Wales a great disservice.
The past is a history of shameful neglect. The history of industrial development in Wales is one which has resulted in much poverty and unemployment. That can be testified to by some of my
126
right hon. and hon. Friends, not from reading books but from personal experience.
Since the war, there have been improvements, but still there persist in many parts of Wales pockets where the level of unemployment is above the average for the United Kingdom. The statement in the Secretary of State's Report entitled Wales, 1965, which says that unemployment rose slightly during the year compared with 1964, although the unemployment percentage was less than in 1963 or 1962, is not calculated to give much comfort to those who have experienced unemployment, especially when we are aware that industry is going through a period of change which has been brought about by technological advances that perhaps have affected Welsh industry to a greater degree than elsewhere. The reason for that is that there has not been the diversification of industry in Wales that we might have had.
In the past, there has not been the recognition by those in authority that, if we are to prevent unemployment when industries become obsolete, there must be forward planning to see to it that new industries come in before the old ones die and close down. Credit is due to the Government for the measures which they have taken to see that Wales is supplied with new industry to safeguard the future employment of our people.
In that, under my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), the Welsh Office has done much which is to its credit. However, despite all its efforts, there are still fears among the people of Wales for the immediate future, that, while the measures which my right hon. Friends have taken are bearing fruit, there may be difficulties which will place hardship and burden upon them.
In my view, it is to this question of looking to the future that we must urge the Government to give much of their thought. I urge them not to take too much notice of present employment figures but, as far as humanly possible, to endeavour to anticipate the industrial needs of Wales some years ahead. It is very good that, from time to time, the Government are able to announce new programmes of advance factories for Wales, but it has become the cause of a

127
great deal of lowering of the morale of people in the places where the factories are to be sited when they have to wait for a considerable time to see the factories built, let alone being brought into operation.
It might be a worth-while suggestion that consideration be given to using industrialised structures in preference to traditional building methods for these advance factories as a means of getting them built more quickly. This kind of building would have another advantage in that it would provide additional employment among those firms in Wales which are manufacturing such buildings already. It would also be a great help to the steel industry in Wales, which is already developing such industrialised building methods.
I am led to understand that one of the causes of delay in building these factories is the difficulty of obtaining ownership of the land upon which they are to be built. In my view, it is important that there should be a much closer liaison between the Board of Trade and local authorities so that greater information can be made available about sites which are ripe for development, and that the local authorities should be given much more encouragement than they have been in the past to acquire such sites.
The scheduling of the greater part of Wales as a development district is something which we welcome. It is regrettable that this policy was not prosecuted in the past, since it has taken very much longer for the policy now being adopted by the Government to become effective in Wales than has been the case in many other parts of the United Kingdom. However, while it is desirable, the mere scheduling of an area is not entirely the answer to the problem. It demands from those districts which are scheduled that they themselves engage in a programme of self-help.
It is encouraging to those of us who come from West Wales to find that the parochial outlook which has bedevilled the Welsh scene for so long is in some way being dissipated. We find that local authorities are now forming themselves into joint development committees. That is an action which we should applaud, and every encouragement should be given to it. I am glad, too, to find that
128
the maxim of those local authorities is, "We are not concerned where it goes, so long as it comes." That kind of mentality speaks very well for the future of Wales.
In my constituency of Neath, we are very fortunate to have had sited the extension of the Ford Motor Company's activities. On a recent visit to the factory, I heard how high the Ford Company holds the Welsh worker in its estimation. Such opinions as that are invaluable to us in Wales. I would urge those companies which have settled among us and received such satisfaction that they do yet a further service to Wales by giving encouragement to other firms which are intent on expanding their businesses and their operations to join them in Wales.
As we have been told by the Secretary of State this afternoon, the long-term future of Wales is good because of the actions which have been taken by the Government, but it is the present which gives rise to concern, and I appeal to my right hon. Friend to remember that it is the short-term on which the greatest emphasis has been laid today. I ask the Government to bear this in mind so that we in Wales may be secure in the short-term, and thus be able to enjoy the long-term about which my right hon. Friend has spoken.
8.0 p.m.
Mr. Donald Anderson: I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) and my hon. Friends the Members for Abertillery (Mr. Clifford Williams) and Pontypool (Mr. Abse). I agree particularly with what they said about the Aberfan tragedy.
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool, who told us of his vision for Severnside, who stressed that we should build on the success of those parts of Wales which can be self-sustaining in the not too distant future, and who pleaded for co-operation between the development departments for the future of the steel industry which significantly affects both his constituency and mine.
With the establishment of the Welsh Office and the success of the regional policies which have been developed by it over the past two years, resulting in the

129
significant success story to date which was outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the future prosperity of Wales seemed, only a short while ago, to be assured. Yet, inevitably, in the current economic climate, old uncertainties arise. It is, incidentally, a climate from which no one in Wales would expect to be exempt.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans), seemed to argue that somehow we could pick and choose those elements of national policy which happened to suit us—we will not have the Irish Free Trade Agreement, but we will have the rest of the agricultural packet because that suits us. The idea that we can pick or choose or be exempt from the major economic scene in the United Kingdom is not supported by hon. Members on this side of the House, but, equally, we do not expect Wales to have to pay proportionately more at a difficult time like this. This is something which everyone on this side would wish to press at this time of economic difficulty.
Only a couple of days ago I received a letter from a constituent who had been threatened with short-time working because of difficulties in the motor industry. He is a married man with three children, and he asked, "Where can I now find security of employment?". Such a question would not have been asked by Welshmen a year or so ago, though it was a question which many Welshmen asked during the difficult times of the 'thirties. I would not like to try any scaremongering of this sort. It would be wrong to do so, but my father had to leave Wales in the 'thirties to find work elsewhere, and inevitably the memories of the people of Wales go back to those difficult times.
When I was a small boy my uncle told me to be a teacher, to look for security. It is this search for security which makes a large proportion of the Welsh people preachers or teachers, and this question of the security of employment is now being raised again in our Welsh valleys.
Many people—and certainly I did, coming as I do from the west of Wales—think that Monmouthshire is a prosperous oasis in the more difficult areas of Wales, but I have learnt that this is not true at the moment. Both the County of Monmouth and the fringe area, particularly
130
Brynmawr in the Brecon and Radnor constituency, are already suffering proportionately more from the squeeze than the country as a whole.
The county planning officer gives figures for the percentage increase in unemployment in the third quarter of the last two years. For 1965, the percentage increase in the county and fringe area was 26·1. In Wales, it was 19·9, and in Great Britain as a whole it was 14T. This year, the figures for the end of the third quarter show that in our county and the fringe area it was 45·2, in Wales it was 30·8 and in Great Britain as a whole it was 30·2.
The decrease in the number of vacancies in the county is distorted by a considerable increase in mining vacancies. I am sure that no one would argue that we should try to force men back into the mines because of the economic difficulties through which we are passing. We have, therefore, on the one hand, a considerable increase in mining vacancies, and, on the other, a sharp decline in service and manufacturing industries.
The latest report by the county planning officer—and this refers to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool—shows that the claim that we are sheltering the development areas is not borne out by statistics. The county planning officer's report, which takes the story to the end of September of this year, shows that only 96 of the 238 vacancies for males in manufacturing industry are to be found in the county and fringe area designated as part of the Welsh development area, and 68 of these are concentrated in the Pontypool and Caerphilly, and 15 vacancies are in the Pontlottyn area. Many other areas, including Blackwood, Brynmawr, Ebbw Vale and Tredegar have no vacancies for males in manufacturing industry.
Despite the fact that almost 50 per cent. of the total vacancies available in the county and fringe area are in the mining industry and cannot be filled, the ratio of vacancies per 100 unemployed is still only 39, compared with the Great Britain average of 103. Even in the south and east of the county where mining vacancies do not obscure the picture—such as in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes)—and unemployment is low, the ratios are not high, Cwmbran having

131
a ratio of 67, Newport 39 and Chepstow 36.
I must mention, too, the question mark which my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool said was hanging over the steel industry in South Wales. Many hon. Members representing mining constituencies have eloquently told the House that the inevitable contraction in employment in these basic industries should not be allowed to coincide with a short-term contraction due to the present economic difficulties, and as these two things are to some extent at least under Government control—certainly the mining industry is, being wholly nationalised, and also a goodly part of the steel industry—they should play their part cushioning the effect of the present economic difficulties on these basic industries.
The problems facing the industry are obvious. There has been a decline in home demand, due in part to the general economic turndown, and there has been a decline in export orders due to surplus capacity overseas and the tightness of the export market. It is wrong, for example, that the Spencer Works, which account for so massive an element of employment in South-East Wales, should suffer more, proportionately, because of its great export record since its inception at the beginning of this decade, and because of the disjointed production lines resulting from an earlier Government compromise.
As hon. Members have said, many questions relating to the future economic picture in Wales have not been answered. We must have answers to these questions if we are to learn anything about the course of employment, trade, and industry in our Principality.
Is it true that the industries attracted to Wales are not those which are best for the Principality? The charge was made by Professor Edward Nevin, amongst others, that the bait that we have put down is not attracting the right mice? How much research is being done on this question under the aegis of the Welsh Office? Again, it is said that we are too dependent for our secondary industry on the motor trade and are therefore feeling the effects of the present downturn in this industry? Is this true?
I hope that the Government will be willing particularly to use the talents and
132
resources available in our national university to find the answers to some of these problems. I have served for two years in a university as a teaching member, and I know how much talent is waiting to be used. I was delighted by the Government's initiative on the Severn Bridge Study, when they used the university facilities, and I hope that this will be used as a precedent for other studies concerning the basic problems of the Principality.
A further question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool and my hon. Friend for Conway (Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies) was the extent of the job requirements in 1970 in Wales. We know of the contraction in the old basic industries—mining, steel, and so on—and the extra employment needed as a result of a natural increase in population. Yet there is a tremendous variation in the figures which are being bandied about, ranging from 40,000 to 100,000 and beyond. There is certainly a need for some solid statistics in this and other areas.
This leads me to the long awaited National Plan for Wales. Many critics have frequently made the point that between 1963 and and 1966 Scotland has had a White Paper on Central Scotland and a plan; North-East England has had a White Paper and a report from its planning council; North-West England has had a planning study and published observations on it by its regional council; yet Wales have nothing. What is unique about the planning problems of Wales that puts it behind the other areas? Is it a lack of funds or the difficulty of building up the right staff?
We need an answer to this question, and I hope that the Minister of State will be a little more precise about the date of the expected publication of this Plan than just to say "the beginning of the year". Last year we were told that it would be at the beginning of this year, and then the midde of the year—"tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow". I would like something a little more precise.
There are understandable questions about the rôle of the Welsh Economic Council. Some of these questions were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands), yet none of us has had an opportunity

133
of reading any views of the various subcommittees of the Council. It is reported that studies are going on on depopulation in Mid-Wales. What is to be the relation of this report with the economic associates' report on the new town? There is said to be a study of industrial dereliction in South Wales, the future of South Wales ports and the attraction of new industry to Wales. But what happens when these reports are published?
What do the Government see as the rôle for Members of Parliament in all this? Are we simply to come in right at the end, when all these experts have given their views on the ports, and on industrial dereliction? Are we expected merely to be rubber stamps? This situation is not confined to Wales; it operates over a broad field of Government policy. There is consultation between the Government and great interest outside, and Members are presented with a fait accompli. What possibility is there of members coming in at the takeoff stage of policy as well as the landing stage, so that they can play some part in deciding the vital questions which affect their constituents?
My only contact with the Welsh Economic Council has been through a constituent. There is much concern in the north of my county—a concern which is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins)—about employment problems and the future of the railway services in that part of the county. This is basic to the industrial structure of the north of the county. In Brynmawr, the unemployment rate is well over 8 per cent. now. Because of this great concern over unemployment in the north of the county several bodies, including the Trade Council, borough council and North Monmouth Development Council, have got together to try to contact the Welsh Economic Council to discover what is to be the future of rail services in our area, which are basic to its economic health. Back came the very disappointing and "wet" reply:
"Any proposal to reduce train services over a particular section of line is entirely a management matter for the Railways Board in their day-to-day operations and is not one in which the Economic Council can intervene.…Should you feel that the Board's response, then, to the representations made is unsatisfactory,
134
the Council might wish to consider making representations to the Transport Users Consultative Committee for the area."
With the experience of my constituents and the T.U.C.C. in the past I can well understand their reluctance to take up this matter. The Welsh Economic Council, as seen by my constituents, seems to have even less teeth than the T.U.C.C., and the reply made seems to be a complete negation of what many of us were expecting from the speech of the Minister of Transport on the rôle of the Economic Council in relation to the communications network.
Now that it is accepted—at least, it should be to an ever greater extent—by the Government that the employment needs of both sides of the Bristol Channel are complementary I should like to know what the Welsh Office is doing in cooperation with the South-West. This point was touched on eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool, and I agree wholeheartedly with everything he said on it.
One of the younger industrial geographers working in South Wales-Gerald Manners—has suggested that a contribution should be made by both sides of the Channel to the other's employment problems, as the industrial structures on the south-west side and on our own side of the Channel stand in vivid contrast. For example, he estimates that between 1965 and 1970 South Wales needs 9,000 jobs annually. This is, in part, because of a contraction in the basic industries and the natural increase in population, besides the greater activity rate which we hope for. Our problem consists of getting jobs into the area as quickly as we can, and into that part of it which is most attractive to industrialists. Mr. Manners concludes one of his papers by saying:
"It would be foolish in the extreme to deny to South-East Wales industry which it can so easily attract."
There are very good economic grounds for arguing that if we do not saturate South-East Wales we shall not tackle the problems. Unless we tackle the problems of the coastal strip there can be no solution further west.
This is the picture on one side of the Channel. On the Bristol side, between 1966 and 1971 Mr. Manners estimates, by contrast, that the region will need at

135
least 8,000 jobs for men alone which cannot be filled from the natural resources of the Bristol region. Either we are to invest heavily in a new infrastructure on the Bristol side—houses, roads, and so on, for the natural increase of 8,000 people—or we must somehow consider the two regions together, and try to tackle the problems togethers, perhaps by some missionary work from the Welsh side in the Bristol area. At least, this is a fascinating problem. I hope that the Welsh Office will consider institutionalising its contact with the Economic Council in the South-West, because, as I have argued, our problems are inter-linked.
We have great confidence in the longtetrm future of Wales. I am sure that, if the policies pursued by the Welsh Office are carried on and developed we will face a much rosier future. But one would not expect Wales to be exempt from the present economic difficulties. I hope that the triumvirate of Ministers in the Welsh Office will be able to look closely at some of these points.
8.21 p.m.
Mr. Elystan Morgan: I am sure that the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Anderson) and the House will forgive me if I do not follow his speech, which was a lucid analysis of many of the problems of South Wales. I find it a great temptation to follow in detail the speech of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans), but, because of the self-denying ordinance which hon. Members have imposed upon themselves and upon each other, I will confine myself merely to saying that I share many of his views about Wales and his fervour for Wales as a land and as a nation. I share his belief that a Parliament for Wales is a condition of Wales's continued existence as a nation.
Nevertheless, I do not agree with his various sweeping analyses and his indictments of the Government and the Welsh Office. I am sure that what we have heard already in the debate has made it clear that this Government have done and have sought to do more for Wales than any of their predecessory. It is ironic but nevertheless understandable that the denigration of this Government from some quarters has been more vociferous and bitter than it was of any preceding
136
Government. I yield to no one in emphasising the gravity of the problems which confront Wales in trade and industry. I am sure that there is no complacency in the Welsh Office. It was obvious from the Secretary of State's speech that he entered many serious caveats in that connection.
I am sure that it is not necessary for hon. Members to plead for humility in approaching this situation, and that the general tone is one of intelligent pessimism. We are all very much aware of the factors which apply—the over-dependence upon a few basic industries, the need for a greater diversity of industry, the lack of exploitation of processing techniques. In the main, our heavy industries produce the primary product and it is immediately whisked out of our country. The further processing takes place somewhere else and the heavier dividends are yielded there. Our people do not benefit to the extent which is their natural right from such developments.
There is ample economic evidence that a very perceptible downward curve in the fortunates of the Welsh economy became prevalent very soon after the Conservative Party took office in 1951 and continued in a steady and relentless downward course. Between 1955 and 1963, the increase in the numbers of people in employment in England was 9·4 per cent. In Wales over the same period, it was only 5·3 per cent. Although this year has for the first time seen one million people on the insured list in this country, it is incontrovertible that, between 1954 and 1963, there was a decrease of 42,000 in the working population of Wales.
It is obvious to all of us that such trends are disturbing, but they are much more than trends. They are points of evidence which show the great weaknesses in the structure of the Welsh economy. It is to such material problems that the Welsh Economic Council must apply itself, as we would plead that it should apply itself in a radical and comprehensive way to producing an ideal national plan for Wales.
I am sure also that I will be pardoned for saying something about Mid-Wales. I have spoken on this subject on previous occasions, but I do not apologise for mentioning it again. Whether the British economy is in boom or recession, the tale of such peripheral areas as these is one

137
of eternal struggle and constant initiative in trying to get the attention of central government focused upon their deep and real problems.
The main problem in Mid-Wales is wholly congruous to the situations which confront my colleagues from South Wales and North-East Wales. There, in the short term, it. is a question of trying to fill the gap between the level of jobs which are lost through changing economic circumstances and the expected level of new jobs created by various agencies.
In Mid-Wales, the position is totally different. It is once again a problem of depopulation. This is—we must always remember—the largest area in the whole of England and Wales suffering rural depopulation. By "rural depopulation" we mean two things. First, there is the question of outward migration and, second, distinct from it but closely linked with it, the question of a natural decrease in that population. The continued effect of this twin blight is seen in massive tracts of territory in Mid-Wales, in which the general age level is already very high and is steadily creeping up.
An example in my own county is that in 1901 the percentage of young people under 15 was 29·5 per cent.; in 1961, it was 20·3 per cent. The percentage of people over 60 in 1901 was 12·9 per cent. and by 1961 it had risen to 22·3 per cent. The 1951 census for Cardiganshire showed that the percentage of persons over the age of 45 was 42 per cent., which compared with 38 per cent. for the whole of Mid-Wales and 35 per cent. for England and Wales as a whole.
The inevitable result of such a pattern must be a disintegration of the rural communities. Because the age level is so high, these communities lose the power of self-reproduction. Secondly, and this is more relevant to this debate, it means that the supply of available labour in those communities very rapidly decreases. It is therefore no coincidence that only just over one person in 20 in my constituency is in manufacturing industry. It matters not how attractive the grants are; in the end employers must have the employees available, for there is no other way of running a manufacturing concern, and there is no reservoir of labour in the areas of which I am speaking.
In some cases it may be possible for the drift from the countryside to be halted
138
by the development of small, local rural industries based on the indigenous economies of those areas. I make a plea here to the Welsh Office. In Britain we are purchasing from abroad 91 per cent. of the timber which we use. By the year 2000 we shall need to double this amount of timber. The percentage of mature wood in the forests of the Forestry Commission, who hold 375,000 acres in Wales, is rising. I ask the Welsh Office, knowing that they will pay heed to it, to make a special survey of the tremendous potential for manufacturing concerns which lies in the woods and forests of the Forestry Commission in Wales.
But such developments are very limited and we have to think of many other possibilities. I say this in relation to advance factories—one of the main sources of employment in my constituency. The Industrial Development Act, 1966, has broadened the considerations, but I plead again that it should not only be a matter of legal and administrative theory but also in practice should be a consideration that rural depopulation in each case should be regarded as a factor equal to that of unemployment in deciding whether a factory should be situated in such a locality.
8.33 p.m.
Mr. Roy HughesWhile not necessarily agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) in his advocacy of Severnside, nevertheless I believe that we should not approach this subject in too parochial a manner. The problems of trade and industry in Wales are the same as for the rest of the country—only more so. In saying that I do not wish to denigrate Wales in any way, because my whole background is in Wales. My father and both my grandfathers were South Wales miners.
To illustrate my argument, I will quote figures given by the Secretary of State in answer to a Parliamentary Question on 3rd November, in which he said that the unemployment figure was 1·7 per cent. for the country as a whole and 3·5 per cent. for Wales. There is no need for me to point out that these figures are rising. When there is talk of "acceptable levels of unemployment", I begin to wonder, because Wales has suffered too long from this philosophy. We expect this sort of

139
talk from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite—
Mr. Gibson-Watt Mr. Gibson-Watt rose—
Mr. Hughes: There is not time to give way. But when one hears such talk from this side of the House one becomes a little disillusioned.
I do not wish to belittle the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. In fact, I commend the Welsh Office for the work that they have done in the two years since their inception in trying to alleviate the unemployment problems in Wales. But my right hon. Friend will be the first to admit that much remains to be done. I sometimes wonder whether he has either the power or the resources to tackle these enormous problems.
I represent one of the more prosperous areas in Wales but one that is increasingly reliant on the steel industry. Three weeks ago I attended the Motor Show. I was reminded that the shiny Cortinas on the stand were made from Monmouthshire steel. Many hon. Members will say, "The motor industry has had it too good for too long", but this attitude is regrettable. Before the war this was a seasonal industry and the trade unions fought for permanency of employment and have largely been successful in their efforts. However, now employers are being encouraged by the Government, in this so-called shake out, to take action which is causing unemployment—this 12 months after the National Plan forecast a considerable expansion in the motor industry.
I said that my constituency was essentially a steel town. In this sense, its fortunes are intimately bound up with those of the motor industry. The overall trade figures for Newport Dock are now tumbling fast—a drop of 62,000 tons in October of this year compared with October 1965. The bulk of incoming cargo is iron ore, but the amount of outgoing cargo has also fallen because of a drop in the export of iron and steel.
Unemployment figures in my constituency are now giving cause for concern, and certainly the unemployment figures for Monmouthshire and its fringe areas show it to be suffering proportionately more than the country as a whole,
140
whereas from various Government statements one would have the impression that areas like Monmouthshire, and Wales generally, were to be protected from the worst ravages of the freeze.
I grant at the short-term measures to stabilise our balance of payments are meeting with some success, but surely the short-term answer is aggravating the long-term solution. The great need of this country is to increase productivity—and the way to do this is by increased capital investment in buildings, plant and machinery. The result would be to place more horsepower at the elbow of the worker so that more could be produced with less effort.
According to the latest industrial trend survey conducted by the C.B.I., private industry will be investing between 15 per cent. and 25 per cent. less in buildings, plant and machinery in the second quarter of 1967. I appreciate that, to some extent, this can be counteracted by increased public investment, but the overall position is most depressing and it will have a detrimental effect on trade and industry in Wales.
Hon. Members may imagine from these remarks that I am rather disillusioned with the Government's economic policies. I begin to perk up when I consider the alternative. After all, we had 13 years of Tory Government and we know the weak position the country was left in at the end of that time. That is why hon. Gentlemen opposite were twice rejected by the electorate in less than 18 months.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to urge his Cabinet colleagues to call off the freeze for the good of trade and industry in Wales. This will restore confidence in industry and get rid of wasteful unemployment in Wales and elsewhere, as well as encourage industry to expand so that the social benefits which we promised in our election programme can be realised. In this way we will tackle the real problems of the British economy and the problem of trade and industry in Wales.
8.40 p.m.
Mr. Alan Williams: It is astonishing to have sat through this debate with so few Conservative hon. Members who represent English constituencies showing any interest in the problems of Wales. It is also astonishing to

141
think that successively so many Conservatives who represent English constituencies have been chosen as their party's official spokesmen on Welsh affairs. Indeed, it is a matter for regret that they hold their own Welsh Members in such low esteem. They can hardly complain if the people of Wales turn around and say, "If the Conservative Party does not consider them fit to speak for Wales, then why should the people of Wales consider them fit to speak for Wales?"
The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) spent some time, as he has done in the past, criticising the Selective Employment Tax. This is an interesting point of view from the Conservative Party, because many of us can remember, just a short time ago, when the Conservatives were bleating about something which they called a payroll tax. It was not so long ago that they were voicing this as a possible alternative form of taxation.
Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am at least grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If the hon. Gentleman can name one of his hon. Friends who has said one single word in favour of the Selective Employment Tax since it was introduce will he please name him?
Mr. Williams: I am very disappointed at that interjection. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was getting up to assure me that Herefordshire is Welsh.
However, I am not talking about the Selective Employment Tax, but the Conservative Party's proposed payroll tax policy. In fact, if the Selective Employment Tax is a blunt instrument, then the payroll tax would be even more of a blunt instrument and would have an even worse effect on the economy of Wales. Would it, for instance, be applied to such groups as nurses and school teachers;and if it were not, would it equal the Selective Employment Tax, or have not the Conservatives themselves been putting forward their own form of employment tax while hypocritically attacking the Selective Employment Tax on platforms throughout the country?
Our main topic is unemployment. Most points have been covered by my colleagues. The unemployment situation in Wales does not represent one problem but three different problems, because
142
there are three different types of unemployment. Unemployment in Wales has been referred to by many Members as being almost twice as high as in England. For many years we have had basic unemployment, which is a problem which has to be solved. We also have structural unemployment, unemployment resulting from changes taking place in the old industries such as iron, steel, and coal in particular.
Deflationary or short-term unemployment has resulted, as most people recognise, from certain policies which have been undertaken since July. The solution to these different types of unemployment is not the same. The solution to the first two—basic unemployment and structural unemployment—obviously lies in the creation of new factories and new jobs. It is assumed that the solution to the third type of unemployment—and I use the term "assumed" advisedly—lies quite simply in re-flation, whereby those who find themselves out of work through deflation will obtain alternative employment through re-flation. But not all those unemployed will be re-employed, because in the meantime those firms which have been without this labour will have devised different ways of getting the work done. Many of them may actually have been holding labour, which was not absolutely necessary, up to the time people were declared unemployed.
We have had all manner of speculation about the number of factory jobs that will be needed in industry to deal with basic and structural unemployment, but to this speculation must be added a number of new factory spaces to absorb some of those who are unemployed as a result of the deflation. My views on the actual form of our re-development areas are well known to many of my colleagues. I feel strongly that our whole approach to development areas is wrong. I have argued before, when Welsh matters have been debated in this Chamber, that both sides are partly right, but neither side is completely right.
The ideal is to have, on the one hand, a blanket development area, which we have and which we reintroduced, and, on the other—since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to small pockets of difficult areas—we need to superimpose, in some black spots areas

143
such as the Rhondda, extra facilities which will give them greater attraction. Otherwise, when we make bigger areas we worsen the position of places like Rhondda, because in terms of the location of factories those places are now as geographically unattractive as they were before but have more areas competing with them which can offer the same financial inducements. The problem expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for the Rhondda can only be met by a two-tier system of development areas.
I have a further worry about the whole credibility of either party's concept of help for the development areas. I am very much in favour of our entering the Common Market, but there is one very serious problem in terms of fulfilling the pledges which all parties have made to bring Welsh industry up to date. If we go into the Common Market, and accept the Treaty of Rome, one of the clauses we will have to accept is that concerned with free mobility of capital, which means that a business man can invest his capital anywhere within the Market—in other words build his factories anywhere, subject to local planning arrangements.
But if we are in the Market the attraction of the south-east of England will become greater. It will become a magnet for future employment. Our present policy is based on two different weapons. On the one hand, we offer positive inducement in the form of financial incentives to firms to come to the areas and, on the other, we have a negative deterrent in terms of the power of the Board of Trade to refuse I.D.C.s. I suggest that while, as members of the Common Market, we would still be able to carry on with offering the financial inducements—as is being done in South Italy and in parts of almost every country on the Continent—our power of negative prohibition would be drastically eroded.
If a manufacturer says to the Board of Trade, "I want to put up a factory in the south-east of England" the Board of Trade can at the moment say, "No, you cannot go there." The man still wants a factory, so he goes elsewhere in Britain. Under the Treaty of Rome, if the Board of Trade refuses
144
that permission it no longer follows that the manufacturer will go to another part of England, or Wales, or Scotland; he will then have every right to say, "If I cannot go to the south-east of England, I will go to France." That one clause of the Treaty of Rome thus imposes a very serious limitation. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Minister of State may not be able to deal with this point tonight, but I hope that he will be able to make some mention of it.
One partial solution of this problem is, as so many hon. Members have rightly said, improvement of communications. Communications are a prerequisite of the industrial build-up of South Wales. I appreciate the sincerity of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans), when he spoke of the amount of money to be spent on roads in Wales, but he should bear in mind that it is not necessarily the roads built in Wales that will be of greatest economic benefit to the Principality.
I would sooner see a fast road to London and to Birmingham than a fast road striking north and south through Wales, because the important thing is to have a road that will enable our workers to get their goods to the mass markets. Therefore, when considering spending on roads which will be of benefit to Wales, the hon. Member should take into account what has been spent on M4 and M5 because these major roads will have an effect on the Welsh economy.
The mines used to be the bones of the social pattern and we built economic flesh around them to make them into communities. Today, the skeleton of the society is the roads pattern. That is why we have to give great thought to how the pattern should develop. A motorway complex would be very acceptable. As a motorist, I like travelling on motorways, but we have to bear in mind that they cost between £0·8 million to £3 million a mile. When there is a limited amount of money to spend on transport we have to ask whether it is better to spend £18 million on building 18 miles of motorway or to spend £18 million to obviate a major bottleneck by building the Severn Bridge.
Is it not better to spend a large part of our road programme in building a real

145
bypass around Cardiff which will benefit the Heads of the Valleys Road, Swansea and the West and make easier access to all these from the Severn Bridge? This bypass should be one of the top priority items for South Wales. We are to get a £7 million Eastern Avenue in Cardiff. I do not want to enter into local politics about this. I should hardly dare to do so when my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is a Cardiff Member, is to reply to the debate. But I doubt very much whether this is the best way of spending £7 million.
We should think of the lesson of Gloucester and how out of date the ring road there has become. We should be considering a sweeping bypass around Cardiff because the effect of spending £7 million on Eastern Avenue during the next four or five years will be used by other parts of Wales as an argument against spending more on duplicating or improving another bypass around Cardiff.
As the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) is to act as a temporary spokesman for his party, I wish to make one or two points about the attitude of the Opposition to Wales. The hon. Member for Monmouth has been talking about the present Government having discouraged investment. He based that on the fact that there are now about 32,000 unemployed. Did not his party discourage investment in 1957 and 1961?
Mr. Gibson-Watt Mr. Gibson-Watt rose—
Mr. Williams: If the hon. Gentleman wants to say that his party did not do so, and that we discourage investment when there are 32,000 unemployed, he can leave it to his hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Barry is capable of answering these points.
Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am not the hon. Member for Monmouth.
Mr. Williams: I am sorry that I got the hon. Member's constituency wrong. I meant the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt). How can he argue that with 32,000 unemployed we are deterring investment and that his party was not deterring investment when there were 45,000 unemployed in 1959 and 58,000 unemployed in 1963? He can check the figures, as I have done. He has referred to the long-term problem of unemployment in Wales. Perhaps it would not
146
be there if during the 13 years of Conservative government the rate of increase in jabs had not been only half that in England.
We have heard about depopulation of Mid-Wales, but during the 13 years when the Conservatives were in office the annual rate of depopulation actually doubled. That was as a result of "progressive Conservative policy". The one thing which they would not allow was development area facilities. Now they are talking allegedly about protecting Wales, on the one hand, and of building Portbury, on the other.
I suggest that only one party has any record of a serious attempt to deal with the problems of Wales. I believe that my colleagues at the Welsh Office are at least making a genuine attempt at the moment to build Wales not, like the hon. Member for Carmarthen, with an eye on 1860 but on 2060.
8.55 p.m.
Mr. Raymond Gower: I must confess that for me to speak from this unaccustomed place, the Opposition Front Bench, is like making a maiden speech without being entitled to call for the indulgence of the House.
We all welcomed the statement by the Secretary of State for Wales following the tragedy at Aberfan. I think he realised that the whole House was with him when he made it. We were glad to hear that he proposed to go a little further than the 1966 Act to try to persuade some of the slower authorities, or those least able to do this sort of work, to do it. All I would ask the Minister of State about it is whether to exceed the terms of the Act will require amending legislation.
Mr. Cledwyn Hughes Mr. Cledwyn Hughes indicated dissent.
Mr. Gower: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I welcome that fact.
One thing has emerged from the debate. I think I shall be on non-controversial ground when I say that it is no easy matter to manage the economy of Wales. For geographical and historical reasons, and owing to the physical configuration of the Principality, and because of the present distribution of population—that is rather important—the task of any Administration must continue to be

147
formidable for many years. That is why I do not pretend that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues at the Welsh Office have an easy task. Such criticisms as I may advance are not intended to be fractious.
My main complaint with hon. Members opposite is that in opposition, and indeed, even today, they have tended to belittle the considerable achievements of Conservative Governments between 1951 and 1964. They have often tended to create an impression that the more difficult problems which face Wales were easy of solution if Ministers only had the will. I am prepared to accept, and I am sure that my hon. and right hon. Friends are, that the present Secretary of State and his colleagues have the will. I believe that they are most anxious to make a success of their responsibilities. Our doubts relate more to their methods and to matters of detail. We fear greatly that in some respects their work may be hampered, even thwarted, by some of the Government's policies for the United Kingdom as a whole.
I agree with those on both sides who have emphasised the importance of road communications. It is perhaps always dangerous to suggest that any one factor is of greater importance than all the others, but in a country with the geographical difficulties of Wales it must be clear that the most practical and easiest and nearest to hand method of facilitating the improvement of industrial and economic efficiency may well be the improvement of road conditions. This can help our least accessible areas and, by definition in many cases, the areas most in need of new industry.
The right hon. Gentleman has made an important and valuable new decision. It will be a great advantage that part of the route to Pembrokeshire, one of our least accessible counties, will be improved. After all, Pembrokeshire, Cardigan, Merioneth and parts of Caernarvonshire are not easy of access, and that is true of some of the chief towns in our industrial areas. I need refer only to the present communications with Merthyr, Pontypridd and Maesteg, to take but a few examples. Far too often in Wales, even now, we have the spectacle of overcrowded and inadequate roads.
148
The right hon. Gentleman took a certain amount of credit for three schemes to which he referred, the Heads of the Valleys Road, the Severn Bridge and the Port Talbot by-pass. I do not want to take away any of the credit to which the Government are entitled, but I remind him that every one of those schemes was projected, started and substantially carried through before his party became the Government. I only wish that he had been able to mention three other schemes on which the Government were about to embark that were even half as impressive as those.
The Government must raise their sights on the question of roads expenditure. In the Financial Times on the 27th September this year, the Secretary of State admitted that they inherited from us a very fine basis for further advance in road building. The right hon. Gentleman then wrote:
"We are already reaping the benefits of the investments made over the last five years in the Welsh road system."
Obviously, his reference to the previous five years was to three years of Conservative Government and only two of his own. When one considers the long preparatory periods necessary for building these modern roads one realises that he was referring to our record and not his own.
I have an uneasy feeling that it may be less accurate to have a similar statement in another five years, unless we are to have some very promising announcements soon. I do not necessarily press for vast motorways on the scale that has been suggested in today's debate. On the other hand, although I do not press for vast motorways all over Wales, I submit that the proposals for trunk roads are very disappointing, even now. Perhaps the announcements which we hope for are being delayed by the review by the Welsh Economic Council of the road needs of Wales, referred to in paragraph 21 of the Green Book, Cmnd. 2918. But how long must we wait before the right hon. Gentleman is likely to make an announcement on his new road programme based on the Council's findings. Meanwhile, if he is looking for a scheme which he might speed up I recommend him to travel on the road from Monmouth to Newport or the road from Cardiff to Pontypridd on any morning of the week. Hon.

149
Members on both sides of the House could give him similar examples of roads which need very early improvement.
I shall not make any prolonged or detailed references to the ports, but these are important. I recognise the efforts made by the British Transport Docks Board and others to improve the situation, but we are still having a difficult battle, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware. I wish that the Chancellor of the Exchequer were here, because when he: was on this side of the House he often implied that this was an easy problem to solve, that rates and dock charges would be equalised by a Labour Government. I do not know how these things will be done. We still labour under the disadvantage of certain less favourable charges. I hope that in his overlordship of all matters concerning Wales, the right hon. Gentleman will have a look at this problem in the fairly near future.
Turning to the general problem of the Welsh economy, it is important, as the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) has just said, to consider the long-term as well as the short-term implications. I hope that hon. Members read the article in the Financial Times of 27th September by Professor Brinley Thomas of Cardiff in which he said—I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect upon these words—
"In the record of achievement since the Distribution of Industry Act 1945, Wales has been an outstanding success story."
Mr. Alan Williams: The hon. Gentleman asks me to reflect upon that. Will he recognise that the bulk of that happened in the first five years, under the Labour Government?
Mr. Gower: No, the bulk of those years were Conservative years. The bulk of those years after 1945, and the years of greatest growth, were Conservative years. I should have thought that we could start with agreement on that. [Laughter.] Does not the Secretary of State agree? The figures for those years—I have them here—show the extent of the: improvement. The economic story of Wales between 1945 and 1964 was one of outstanding success, not only in the mind of Professor Brinley Thomas, but in the mind of many others who have studied the problem.
150
It is important that the present Government study the methods by which the success was achieved. During most of that period, there was no threat of further nationalisation. There was every encouragement to smaller firms in all parts of the United Kingdom, and there was every effort by successive Chancellors of the Exchequer not to impose excessive taxation on industry.
Professor Brinley Thomas went on to say—this is not, perhaps, so happy—
"Recently, however, there have been signs, quite apart from the impact of the balance of payments crisis, that the Welsh economy is running into turbulence".
I emphasise his words, "quite apart from the balance of payments crisis". He goes on:
"Between 1948"—
this is the reply to the hon. Member for Swansea, West—
"and 1964 Wales' share of British unemployment was halved, from 12·9 per cent. to 6·7 per cent.".
Those were nearly all Conservative years.
"But in the last two years"—
two years of Labour Government—
"there has been a reaction, and the proportion of British unemployment in Wales has risen again to 8·6 per cent."
Mr. Alan Williams: The point the hon. Gentleman overlooks is that any study of the development of new industry shows that from 1952 the rate of growth in the development areas slowed down and the proportion of new factory building going to development areas was at its peak between 1945 and 1952.
Mr. Gower: The hon. Gentleman misses the point that the efficacy or success of a policy is not always to be judged by the number of factories. In the time of the Conservative Government, the creation of one factory at Llanwern provided as much employment as 50 advance factories. It is cock-eyed to judge everything by the number of single units.
I emphasise that Professor Brinley Thomas wrote those words in September before the stern financial measures of last July had had time to take anything like full effect. What reasons do the Government give for the change? Do they attribute it mainly to financial policies due to balance of payments difficulties, as the hon. Member for Swansea, West did?

151
If so, I remind them again that Professor Brinley Thomas was at pains to say that the troubles and signs now appearing arise quite apart from the balance of payments problem.
Professor Brinley Thomas posed the question whether this might prove to be a necessary pause for regrouping or whether it reflected some more serious instability. Do the Government consider that this comparative setback is mainly attributable to the contraction in terms of manpower of the two large industries, coal and steel? This would be a comprehensible argument which we could understand, and it would enable us better to assess the adequacy of the measures they are now taking to deal with it. None of the Ministerial pronouncements that I have seen recently has dealt with this problem. Indeed, I have great sympathy with the Secretary of State, who today sounded very optimistic, and I hope that he is right. I would, however, mention one other aspect.
"Wales 1965", the same Green Book, is in some respects most helpful. It gives excellent detailed information about applications by industrialists who are interested in Welsh sites, visits by industrialists to Wales, new advance factories and new jobs in prospect. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) pointed out, however, it is much less adequately documented and provided with information about closures or temporary closures, numbers of redundancies or numbers of employees affected by closures. While I do not suggest that we want to dwell on these less pleasant facts, at the same time, to arrive at a balanced judgment, it would be helpful if we had more of this information, too.
Therefore, it may be helpful to the House if I try briefly to balance the circumstances, favourable and unfavourable. On the credit side, we have the undoubted anxiety of the Secretary of State and the Minister of State to do their very best, and I do not minimise that fact. That is a real factor. We also have the investment grant. It is not as favourable in some parts of Wales as the former investment allowances, but, nevertheless, it is in most cases a favourable factor. We
152
also have the other financial inducements which are available to firms moving into our development areas. There is also the negative control in London and the other prosperous parts of England.
I would like to know whether the Government have considered going a little further than that. For example, in South Wales—indeed, in some of our development areas—I know of building and construction firms which provide most valuable employment but some of which are in grave financial difficulty because of new obligations like increased taxation, the Selective Employment Tax, and, above all, restriction on bank overdrafts. Has any attempt been made by the Secretary of State or by the Government to ensure that bank overdrafts are considered differently in development areas from bank overdrafts in the more prosperous areas? I put this forward as a real suggestion because it is important.
When we turn to the debit side, we must list some loss of confidence on the part of industrialists, whether it is based on sound considerations or not. Even with the benefit of the positive inducements to start undertakings in the development areas, even with the negative control of the withholding of industrial development certificates and even with the building of advance factories, some industrialists must hesitate in the present financial climate.
Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that the statistics which I gave in my opening speech show clearly that the number of industrial development certificates covered the largest area of factory floor space ever to be granted in any given year, and that this clearly shows the confidence of industry in Wales and in the Government?
Mr. Gower: I am much encouraged by what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Nevertheless, in parts of Wales we cannot overlook, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) pointed out, the unfortunate impact of the Selective Employment Tax. I ask the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of State to note that on a count taken on 10th October this year it was found that 3·5 per cent. of the insured working force in Wales was unemployed compared with 1·7 per cent. in England.

153
In his explanation of those figures, the Secretary of State stated that the areas most affected were the North Wales holiday coast and the holiday coast in Pembrokeshire. It is ironic that those very areas are the ones most affected by the ravages of the Selective Employment Tax. These are the very areas which he referred to as being the ones of heaviest unemployment. I must warn the Minister, as I have already intimated, that I know of construction firms, in particular, and others, even in Cardiff and in my own constituency, which must face a very critical financial winter owing to the present economic climate, owing to the restriction on bank advances, and owing to a decline in some kinds of building activity, and, indeed, owing to the Selective Employment and other new tax obligations which affect the building industry.
I refer to the Minister of State because he was reported in the South Wales Evening Post of 19th July as saying that it was unlikely that new industrial developments promised for Wales would be affected by the Government's squeeze on expenditure. That is what he said or what he is reported as saying. This was indeed heartening news, and I hope that his forecast will be completely vindicated by events. I wonder if he can now give us a similar assurance in respect of existing industrial undertakings in the development areas of Wales, because these are just as important as new industrial prospects. It is no good telling us that the new ones will be unaffected by the credit squeeze and restriction if the older, longer-established ones will be savagely affected. So I hope that he will be able to say that the redeployment, the shake-out, will not have this injurious effect on the older industries.
Also, can he tell us, if the redeployment, if the shake-out, should threaten the very existence of firms and companies in Wales, have any special preparations been made by the Welsh Office to deal with the problems which will then arise? I do not want to make black prophecies, but I have every reason to believe that some companies will be in dire difficulty in the months ahead.
We on this side of the House share the Government's enthusiasm for new industrial undertakings in Wales, and certainly, too, we support the most generous provision for advance factories whereever
154
the availability of labour, the terrain and other conditions prescribe. and we hope that the various forecasts of jobs in prospect are not over-optimistic. As I have already intimated, it would assist us in arriving at a proper assessment of these matters if we could get the other side painted in more fully.
I accept the fact that, of course, some of our present troubles may be temporary. I imagine there must be some effect on our ancillary industries of the present unfortunate troubles in the motor industry, and perhaps the Minister of State can inform the House and help the House and reassure the House by giving us some up-to-date information about the reactions so far of the troubles in the motor car industry on the feeder ancillary industries which are already established in the Principality.
I differ from my hon. Friend in this, that I am glad that the Secretary of State has asked the Welsh Economic Council to assess the effect in Wales of the Selective Employment Tax. I think that many of us on both sides of the House will applaud him for this decision. At the same time I cannot help reflecting that this is a most extraordinary way in which to proceed. We have the spectacle of the Government introducing a new form of tax, and then they depute to a Economic Council the job of examining its evil or good effects. I should have thought it much more sensible first to depute to some Economic Council an assessment of the good effects or bad effects of such a tax before introducing it, and not to do it in reverse.
I recommend the Secretary of State indeed that he should later ask the Welsh Economic Council to assess the effect in Wales of the present system of Corporation Tax, particularly in respect of its effect on and bias against smaller companies. I think it is most important for a country which, like Wales, must look increasingly to some of the smaller companies as well as the large ones to come and start enterprises with us.
The Council might also, with benefit, consider the effects of the substitution of investment grants for investment allowances in some parts of Wales and the fact that the grants do not extend to some areas of the Principality where the allowances were available. Can the Minister of State give us fuller information about

155
the results so far of the extension of the development areas in Wales? He will have heard from some of his hon. Friends today that there are anxieties about this which were not confined to any one part of the House.
The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert), it may have been by a Freudian lapse, referred to the "so-called" development areas. The Minister of State will recall the anxiety that was expressed. It was felt that the extension might affect some of these areas adversely. Can he explain what sanctions exist in his Department at present to persuade a firm to site a factory in reasonable proximity to the industrial valleys rather than to what may be the more spacious parts of the development areas? Are there some extra inducements and sanctions which do not obtain for the areas as a whole? This reflects the argument of the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) about a two-tier system. In some degree, I agree with that argument.
It has been voiced by the hon. Member for Aberdare, the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) and the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands) that there is a good deal of evidence we need increased facilities over and above those already provided by my right hon. and hon. Friends and recently extended for retraining in Wales. The very nature of the Welsh economy at present demands a further increase in the facilities for retraining. I wonder whether the Minister of State would announce, either tonight or soon, the establishment of another training centre besides the one in Cardiff and the one in Llanelli. There is a case for at least one more in Wales in the next year, and I hope that the Government will be able to give us that facility.
At this time it would be surprising if on either side of the Chamber there were no anxiety about the economic future of the Principality. The Government assumed responsibility after what was described by Professor Brinley Thomas and others as an outstanding success story. To the hon. Member for Swansea, West I say that it would not be reasonable to expect the Government to maintain the remarkable momentum of those years, but there are disquieting signs that their predilection for central
156
planning committees and plans, some of them of dubious worth, is less suited to the problems of Wales than the more flexible methods favoured hitherto.
Mr. Alan Williams Mr. Alan Williams rose—
Mr. Gower: No, I will not give way. I have very little time left. I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand.
Their task is to build on planned foundations already revived to enable Wales and the Welsh people to make an increasing contribution to the prosperity of the Principality. We wish them well in those formidable tasks, because they also have the very difficult job of reconciling the needs of the industrial parts of Wales to those of agriculture and tourism, and it is not an easy job to reconcile them all. We wish them well in the formidable tasks which they face and, without any intention of hampering them, we shall continue to be vigilant in opposition and critical at all times.
9.23 p.m.
The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. George Thomas): It falls to my lot to say to the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) that we are very pleased that at last he has come to the Front Bench of the party opposite. It took me a long time to get here, as well.
I find the hon. Gentleman an interesting character. He alternates between such incredible optimism when his party is in power and such depressing sadness when they are out of power that his arguments lose some validity.
The hon. Gentleman was sensitive tonight. He thought that my hon. Friends were belittling the record of the Tory Government. Perhaps I might offer him a word of comfort. He should not be too sensitive about that. It is the way of Governments to criticise those who went before, though it will be a long time before hon. Gentlemen opposite have the opportunity to return the courtesy to us.
The hon. Gentleman asked a lot of questions. He always does. His speeches normally consist of a series of questions, some of them very good, too. He asked about the Economic Council, and about the roads plan. Other hon. Members, too, asked about the Economic Council, and perhaps I might at once clear up this question. The Welsh

157
Economic Council, like all other economic councils, is an advisory body to the Government. All Governments have advisory bodies. My hon. Friends asked for reports to be published, but Governments do not publish reports from their advisory bodies, unless, of course, they want to. The advice which we are getting is helping us in our ambitious plan for the future of the Principality of Wales, and right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will not, I trust, have too long to wait.
One of my hon. Friends asked me for the date, as if the date was important. The important thing is that this plan shall ensure for our people full employment and a higher standard of living. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, and I are very pleased with the way in which the plan is developing, but we must make sure that cur priorities are right.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether I would be able to pronounce tonight on the question of a further Government training centre for Wales. At present, there are about 800 people each year in Government training centres in Wales. A vast amount of other training facilities provided under recent legislation is opening up opportunities for our people, and my hon. Friends have every right to be proud of the way in which the Government are increasing training opportunities in Wales at a faster rate than ever before in the history of the Welsh people.
In addition, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is engaged in a detailed study of further expansion in Government training centres. There is a strong case for a third Government training centre in Wales, and I hope that it will not be long before my right hon. Friend is able to announce his expansion plans. I must, therefore, ask the House to be patient on that question.
Today has been a reminder to us all that Welsh day in the Commons has a new significance, since we have a Welsh Office with a Secretary of State in charge.—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) will hold himself in patience for a while, he will find that I have something to say to him to his advantage.
It is a long day's march from the time when a former friend and much-loved
158
colleague of hon. Members on this side of the House—and I believe that he was beloved by many hon. Members opposite—"Nye" Bevan, ridiculed the Welsh day because it was so ineffective. Those were the days of diffuse debate. We covered a wide field, and there was no one upon whom we could pin responsibility. Today, from hon. Members on both sides of the House, it has been made clear that my right hon. Friend not only has executive powers over major aspects of the Government's work in Wales but that he regards as equally important the real oversight which he enjoys over the whole field of Government activity in Wales.
That is why my right hon. Friend was able to speak today with such authority on the question of dps. I grew up under the shadow of a tip in the Rhondda Valley. Like everyone else in the House, I was deeply moved by the tragedy at Aberfan. It has been my sad duty to go into many of the afflicted homes, and I shall soon have been in every one of them. I believe that character is proved in adversity. It certainly has been in that brave little community, called upon to bear a burden that no community would ever want to have to bear.
My right hon. Friend has ensured by his statement today that all the resources of the local authorities and the Government are available to see that never, never, never again shall a disaster of that sort occur. To those people who believe that money would stand in the way of removing dangerous tips I say that that thought is unworthy, and that my right hon. Friend has today given to all Wales a message of confidence and reassurance, and has pledged Her Majesty's Government to see that money will be available in respect of tips which are considered to be dangerous.
There are tips that cause some anxiety. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Power is this week obtaining an independent opinion on the Cilfynydd tip, and also on the Merthyr Vale tip, which is an old one, grown over with grass but which has caused some apprehension because it is near Aberfan. Anyone who went to Aberfan, let alone lived there, would share this apprehension in respect of any tip. There are also the Cwmamman tips, which are disused, and are the responsibility partly of the Coal Board, partly of the local authority and partly of private

159
owners. The Board has advised that one of the tips, not wholly under its control, possibly presents a danger and has already put in hand remedial measures as a precaution, at the request of the local authority.
The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) asked certain questions on this matter. He wondered whether the provisions of Section 20 of the Industrial Development Act would be limited to land in local authority ownership. I am pleased to be able to give him a categorical reply, "No, Sir". It may be applied to all derelict sites, irrespective of ownership. The Act provides powers for compulsory acquisition where necessary and a tip may be dealt with whoever owns it.
Both sides of the House have today expressed anxiety about employment. Before I deal with this, I should like to refer to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans). The hon. Member speaks with courtesy and kindness in the House and I want to speak with courtesy to him, but to say some straight things to him. The hon. Member seems to speak with a different voice outside the House, judging by a comment of his on 31st October when referring to the Aberfan tragedy, which caught the heart of all people and in which, surely, politics should have been forgotten. But the hon. Member is reported in the Western Mail as saying, in connection with the Government statement about public discussion on Aberfan:
"It is afraid of something "—
the Government, that is—
"and what the Government is afraid of is the anger of the people. It is afraid that it might have to spend a lot of money to clear the tips which disfigure our land and imperil the lives of our men, women and children."
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw that statement, in view of my right hon. Friend's speech this afternoon.
Mr. Gwynfor Evans: I welcome the statement made by the Secretary of State. I think that it goes far to meet the criticisms which I made in Swansea.
Mr. Thomas: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I hope that he will also withdraw another statement which he made, on 16th July, as reported
160
in the Liverpool Daily Post, which I found hard to believe. In this he said:
"The Labour Party is politically corrupt and there is no moral integrity there."
If this Parliament runs its five years, as I believe it will, the hon. Gentleman will gain fair experience before he returns to Carmarthen and will know that to doubt the sincerity of those with whom he disagrees is a very unfortunate policy. I leave it there.
I wish to turn to the debate and particularly to the major issue of employment. The hon. Member for Carmarthen thought that the crisis had nothing to do with Wales and poured scorn on the fact that we have asked the Welsh Economic Council to enter into research with the South-West Economic Planning Council. He also said some time ago, as reported in the Press, that the Severn Bridge was the greatest disaster which had come to Wales—
Mr. Gwynfor Evans Mr. Gwynfor Evans indicated dissent.
Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman was reported as saying it. I am glad to learn that he was misreported.
When I was in West Wales, on Friday, I learned from the Mayor of Tenby that he had been asking questions about the exceptionally large number of visitors which the town had had this year, in October. He had discovered that two out of every three had come across the Severn Bridge. The fact that roads have been improved by the Port Talbot bypass and the Cowbridge by-pass means that the journey to West Wales has been shortened considerably, and that the Severn Bridge will have beneficial effects on the Welsh tourist industry.
Mr. Probert: And on Carmarthen.
Mr. Thomas: And, of course, on Carmarthen, but I had finished with the hon. Member for Carmarthen.
In an able speech, my hon. end the Member for Conway (Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies) said that we need growth industries which are labour-intensive. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. G. Elfed Davies) was also anxious that the right sort of industry should come to Wales. I have heard this from both sides of the House tonight. I was about to say that I speak as Chairman of the Welsh Economic Council, but

161
I speak here, of course, as Minister of State. As Chairman of the Welsh Economic Council, however, I do not tell anyone to go away. I do not refuse any employment for our people as long as prospects are reasonable.
I believe that the Board of Trade has done an excellent job in Wales during the past few years and has done it in the face of great difficulty. What of research into the kind of industry suitable to our needs? Of course, we need the sort of industries which are suitable to our needs. I should like a lot more light engineering industry to come to Wales. No one in the House believes in the direction of industry, and, therefore, we can obtain new industry only by inducement, by making it even more attractive for industries to come to the Principality.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been very helpful to us at this time of freeze and economic difficulty. What has he done to protect the Principality and other development areas in the country? There is a whole list of activities of which I remind the House. There has been control of office development, which is helping to steer such development to development areas. There is the extension of control by industrial development certificates. In answer to the hon. Member for Barry—there has been a request to the banks to have regard to development area policy, and that is something new. There is a new programme of advance factories. There is preferential access to the Public Works Loans Board for local authorities in development areas. There was exemption for development districts from the deferment of capital projects in the summer of 1965. There is exemption for development areas from building controls. There has been the widening of the former development district boundaries, which means that for the first time Mid-Wales comes under the provision. Later this week I shall be meeting the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Council.
Mr. Gibson-Watt: Association.
Mr. Thomas: I apologise. I have said before that I am only a poor Welshman trying to speak English.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) was kind enough to send me a note to explain that he had flown home from Europe for this
162
debate and that he was flying back tonight. He gave me a little "dig" about my movements around Wales. This is true. I have been in every hon. Member's constituency. That is a very important part of our work. Hon. Members opposite sneered, during the first election which we fought as a Government, last year, that we were weekend visitors to Wales. They cannot say that now. They might wish we were.
An important side of our work in the Welsh Office is to see at first hand what is happening throughout the Principality. I have talked with industrialists and this week I will be speaking with representatives of the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association, to which my right hon. Friend paid a well-deserved tribute earlier and of which my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) is the Vice-Chairman. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the outstanding work that he has done in Wales.
There are other advantages to which I could refer, but I wish to speak of the right hon. Member for Flint, West. I met him in his constituency and I assure the House that he is a different man when he is in North Wales. What charm! "Febrile charm", the right hon. Gentleman called it. He oozes such good will in West Flintshire that I hardly recognised him. I thought that I was one of his old friends; but, of course, he was on his best behaviour.
I hope and believe that the Dee Estuary crossing will succeed. I am sure that if it can be managed it will mean as much to North Wales as the Severn Bridge means to South Wales.
Mr. Birch: I said that.
Mr. Thomas: I am saying it better.
The hydraulic model, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, to be used for testing schemes for crossing the Dee has been completed and is just coming into use. A firm of consultants is well launched in the feasability study of the crossing, which has been commissioned by the Government in association with Flintshire County Council, Cheshire County Council and the Dee and Clwyd River Authority.
The Government are meeting 75 per cent. of the cost. When the consultations have finished the first stage of their

163
study, it will be possible to determine accurately whether the total benefits of a crossing merit further examination, as I hope they will. The hydraulic study will not be completed before 1969. It is, therefore, too soon to ask for final decisions on this complex and highly technical matter.
I understand the anxiety of hon. Members about unemployment. Older hon. Members know that I am the son of a miner from the Rhondda Valley and that I grew up there during the depression. People need not talk to me about the horrors and cruelty of unemployment. I am on their side to begin with.
However, it is only right and proper that we should put into perspective the picture of Wales today. There is a great deal on the credit side and my right hon. Friend was not being foolishly optimistic when he talked of the long-term trends for our people. He was speaking on the basis of information.
In addition to the advance factory programme, the Board of Trade is currently completing in Wales eight extensions to factories and we hope that this work will be completed by next March. Together, they will provide about 1,200 jobs. The Board of Trade this year also approved 19 projects for new factories or extensions which are expected to provide about 3,200 jobs.
I want to repeat to the people of Wales who take an interest in this debate that existing industrial building already authorised, together with existing buildings taken over for manufacturing purposes, still promise eventually nearly 20,000 new factory jobs in Wales, nearly 14,000 of them for men. This is not airy-fairy talk. This is on the basis of contracts agreed, and is without taking into account any allowances for advance factories not yet allocated to a definite tenant.
To be sure, this a four-year forecast, and our people have to live in the meantime, but it is interesting to note how broad is the basis of the distribution of this employment. Of the figure of 20,000, East and West South Wales are expected to get 14,700 jobs. North-West Wales, North-East Wales, Central and South-West Wales are expected to get 5,000. I
164
believe that the future for our people is much brighter than we have been led to believe.
I turn to the question of vacancies. On 5th October vacancies in Wales totalled 9,065. Nearly half the vacancies for men, it is true, are in coal mining. There is a national need for coal miners. We must not sound apologetic when we say to a man that he can serve the country in a coal mine. My father and brothers served there, and it is an honourable calling.
During the post-war years considerable diversification of industry has taken place in Wales, and now only three out of 109 manufacturing industries, recognised by the standard industrial classification, are not represented in Wales. That is a record of which to be proud, and it is something about which my hon. Friends should speak with pride, as I do myself.
It is true that a great proportion of new industries is related mostly to the car industry, and this has naturally caused some anxiety regarding employment; but I have no evidence of any major or damaging effects yet. I say "yet" because I do not want to "chance my arm" on any question about people's jobs. However, it is no mean achievement that 28 new firms in Wales or new factories, have been set up by existing employers since the middle of last year, which are currently employing 3,000 people.
That is the answer to those who say, "We hear your forecast, but where are the jobs?" Since the middle of last year 3,000 people earned their bread and butter because of the economic policy of Her Majesty's Government in helping to establish new industries in Wales. Sixteen firms have substantially increased their labour force by over 100 workers each during the last 12 months and these extensions represent an increase of 3,100 jobs since last October.
If the Government's policy had not been succeeding in the Principality of Wales, at the same time as the coal mining industry has been contracting and the private sector of the steel industry is shedding its over-manning, we would have been faced with monumental unemployment by now. I believe that we deserve credit for positive, constructive measures to protect the economic interests of our people.

165
There is another aspect of which we should be proud. We in Wales are connected with one of the most dynamic moves in the whole of Europe to associate technology with industry. In little North Wales—and I must apologise to my right hon. Friend, but I call it "little North Wales" because its population is smaller than ours in the South—in Eangor, exciting progress is being made in the relationship of industrial research and the university. The Ministry of Technology has been encouraging efforts to accommodate a further increase in the industrial activity of the university. The Ministry and the Science Research Council have together discussed with the college proposals to establish an industrial development unit at the college with Government support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. J. Idwal Jones), who made a thoughtful speech—as, of course, did all my hon. Friends, except one who was critical of me—also made a powerful speech on this subject last Welsh day. He will be pleased to know that people from all over Europe are coming to see the way in which the university is able to get so involved in industry that it can also enter the industrial market. I believe that here we are on the high road to giving to British industry and
166
technology an advantage that is essential if we are to win our battle for economic survival.
A great deal has been said here today that will cause worry outside, but after six months in the Welsh Office with my right hon. Friend and with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, I esteem it one of the great honours of my life to serve the Principality of Wales—the land of my fathers—in this field. I believe in my heart that the Government are resolved to ensure that the gifts and the talents of our people are used for the national interest. I believe, also, that I can look the Rhondda in the face, and Merthyr Tydvil and Aberdare and all those places that have had such a long and wretched history of unemployment, and say to them, "This Government will keep faith with Wales as the Welsh people have kept faith with us".
Mr. E. S. Bishop: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Sea Fisheries Regulation Bill [Lords] may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. McBride.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SEA FISHERIES REGULATION BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  10.1 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I rather hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General would explain this Bill, because it contains some aspects that are rather novel in a Consolidation Measure. Although it is called the Sea Fisheries Regulation Bill, it is not a sea fisheries Consolidation Bill. It is not a Bill for the consolidation of legislation related to sea fisheries and the sea fishing industry. All it does is to consolidate a very small part of the mass of legislation which relates to this subject.
  It would have been a great help if this Bill had contained, as it ought to have contained, a Schedule showing the table of comparisons and derivation from the previous statutes. This is particularly important when only a part of the law on any one subject is being consolidated. The Joint Committee of the House of Lords and House of Commons, appointed to consider Consolidation Bills, asked for the insertion of a Schedule of tables of comparison and derivation. I hope the Solicitor-General will say why the Government did not concede this request of the Committee.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows from previous experience that all he can discuss on the Second Reading of this Bill is whether the proposed consolidation should take place or whether the laws should be left expressed in a number of different statutes.
  Mr. Page: I shall endeavour, Mr. Speaker, to keep strictly to that point of order. If I may refer to the actual contents of the Bill with a view to asking the House to consider whether this is the proper time for consolidation of this subject, I call attention to the contents of Clause 2(3) and Clause 21.
  As I understand, in those Clauses the Bill seeks to embody as legislation of Parliament an Order made in the past by a
  168
  Minister. Of course there can always be objection to that process of promoting subordinate legislation to the rank of Parliamentary legislation. We have discussed this before on Consolidation Bills in the not very distant past. There can be objection because thereupon, by embodying subordinate legislation in a Consolidation Bill, we deprive the subject of the right to challenge that Order as being ultra vires. Of course there can be no objection to that if we do so by the normal process of legislation—by Second Reading of a Bill, Committee stage, Report and Third Reading—but that is not so with the consolidation procedure because the House does not get the opportunity of discussing the matter on its merits.
  What is embodied in Clause 2(3) is an Order which changed the date on which the appointment of a sea fishery officer takes effect. It changed the date from 1st April to 1st July, and a three-year appointment of a sea fishery officer will now terminate on 1st July instead of on 1st April as it did before the Order which is now contained in the Consolidation Measure. I have no objection—indeed I would be out of order if I did object—to this on the merits, particularly as the Order was made 13 years ago, but it may be that this affects individuals and the Committee mentioned this in its discussions, but not in its report.
  I certainly received the impression on previous discussions of the Committee's deliberation on Consolidation Bills that it would be an accepted fact that the Committee would report such circumstances to the House when an Order was embodied in consolidating legislation. I thought we had established that rule in previous debates on Consolidation Bills, and I am surprised that, if the Committee did not report it, the Solicitor-General should not have informed the House of it by way of introducing the Bill on its Second Reading here.
  There are other peculiarities of this Consolidation Measure which raise the question whether it ought to be considered before amending legislation to existing law has been laid before the House. For example, the Bill defines "sea" as including—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the hon. Gentleman of something which I

  169
  suspect he knows, that it has been ruled that on the Second Reading of a Consolidation Bill the only question that can be discussed is whether the law should be consolidated or left expressed in a number of different Statutes. This rule applies equally to Bills only to consolidate and Bills to consolidate with corrections and Amendments. We cannot discuss corrections and Amendments.
  Mr. Page: With great respect, Mr. Speaker—of course I accept your Ruling—I had hoped that I was not going beyond the bounds of order in considering whether by embodying certain conditions in this Consolidation Measure we were making the law less acceptable than if it were left in its several Statutes as at present.
  Mr. Speaker: I am not questioning the validity, Tightness or justness of anything that the hon. Gentleman says. I am merely instructing him in what is in order.
  Mr. Page: If I may rely on you, Mr. Speaker, as, of course, I can, to call me to order if I overstep the bounds, I hope that I am in order in referring to the difficulties which I think will arise from this Consolidation Measure by the definitions which are embodied in it. I was referring to the definition of "sea" which appears in Clause 20 as including the coast up to high-water mark. It is true that in the legislation which this Consolidation Bill seeks to consolidate there is no definition of "coast", which leaves us in some doubt as to what is meant in the Consolidation Measure by the definition of "sea" as including coast.
  Mr. Speaker: This is just the kind of thing that the hon. Gentleman cannot discuss.
  Mr. Page: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, if I am over-stepping the bounds of order, but I should have thought that when a Consolidation Measure of this sort is brought before the House it is for the House to consider whether this is the time for consolidating the Statutes without first amending them. I am commenting entirely upon what is contained in the Measure as it comes before the House and endeavouring to show that it might have been better to delay it rather than bring it before the House at the present
  170
  time because there are a number of ambiguous points in the law which could have been disposed of by amending legislation before this Bill was brought before the House. On such points as I have mentioned I would have hoped that the Solicitor-General could have indicated to the House whether any amending legislation is in contemplation if the Measure is passed tonight.
  There are a number of other points within the Measure which are of the same nature as that to which I have referred. As the law stands, it presents great difficulties for the seafaring officer carrying out his duties, and it would have been better if this Measure had been delayed and not brought before the House in its present state. As I am restricted by the rules of order from dealing with these matters in any detail, as you have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, I only invite the hon. and learned Gentleman to indicate whether there is any intention by the Government to bring forward amending legislation on a number of matters which were raised by the Committee.
  10.10 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): Both the hon. Gentleman and I are limited in the matters to which we may refer in this debate. The hon. Gentleman sees it to be part of his public duty—I make no complaint—to canvass each Consolidation Measure which comes before the House, but we are concerned here only with the issue of whether the law should be consolidated. Some of the hon. Gentleman's observations are really directed towards the state of the law. When he talks about a definition of "coast" or of "sea", that is all contained in the existing law. What we are concerned with here is whether it is expedient to consolidate certain Acts of Parliament. I would refer to the recommendation of the Joint Committee:
  "The Committee are of the opinion that the Bill consolidates the existing law with such corrections and improvements as can properly be authorised under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949 and they consider that there is no point to which the attention of Parliament ought to be drawn."
  On the desirability of consolidating certain Statutes, I would refer to page 15 of the Minutes of Evidence of the Committee, and to the evidence of Mrs. E. Eadie, who is the Deputy Parliamentary

  171
  Counsel, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and who was the principal witness before the Committee. She said:
  "The Committee may feel that this Bill is a very small contribution to the consolidation of the various Acts now in force dealing with sea fisheries and the sea fishing industry. Many of those Acts were passed in the last century, and the consolidation of them in one Act—not necessarily in one Act, I doubt if that would be appropriate, but at any rate in Acts fewer in number than those now in force would be an improvement in the statute law relating to these subjects. There are, however, so many Acts in force that it is not possible to deal with them all at the same time or very quickly. It was therefore decided that the best way of making progress with the
  172
  consolidation of these Acts was to proceed by stages and to select such number of Acts as could conveniently be considered relatively quickly."
  That is what we are doing by this Measure. No doubt we shall proceed with the process of consolidation just as the Government are proceeding with despatch unequalled by any recent Government with the business of law reform.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Bishop.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

SOCIAL SECURITY (SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS)
10.13 p.m.
Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Supplementary Benefit (General) Regulations 1966 (S.I., 1966, No. 1065), dated 12th August 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th August, be annulled.
If it would meet with your approval, Mr. Speaker, perhaps we might discuss at the same time the other two Statutory Instruments referred to in the other two Prayers:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Supplementary Benefit (Appeal Tribunals) Rules 1966 (S.I., 1966, No. 1066), dated 12th August 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th August, be annulled.
and.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Supplementary Benefit (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1966 (S.I., 1966. No. 1067), dated 12th August 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th August, be annulled.
Mr. Speaker: If the House so pleases.
Mr. van Straubenzee: I am much obliged. I am grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for his presence and I apologise to him that these occasions always seem to happen at an ungodly hour in the evening. I wish to make it clear to him that the object of making the Prayer is most emphatically not to persuade the House to vote down the three Statutory Instruments that we are discussing, but rather to draw attention to one or two aspects of the matters contained in them. These three Statutory Instruments taken together cover precisely the sort of matters with which hon. Members will be concerned in, for example, their "surgeries", as we call them, and it is, therefore, of value to have the contents spotlighted for a moment, both from the point of view of the general public and from the point of view of hon. Members themselves.
I take, first, the Supplementary Benefit (General) Regulations, and I have a question to put on Regulation 4, which sets out what the procedure is, first, if a person's net weekly earnings are easily
174
ascertainable. Second, in paragraph (2), the Regulation deals with the case of the person whose weekly earnings are not immediately ascertainable, and provides that in such a case the computation shall be made in such manner and on such basis as the Commission considers appropriate, having regard to all the circumstances.
It might be for the convenience of the House and the general public if the Parliamentary Secretary could go a little further and say what is in his right hon. Friend's mind as to the making of this latter calculation. I think that I am right in saying that for earnings-related sickness and unemployment benefits the basis is a 50-week year to take account of the possibility of earnings having increased over the start of the year. Is this also the basis upon which the hon. Gentleman expects Regulation 4 to be operated? If he could amplify a little what is set out in the Statutory Instrument, this would be of considerable assistance.
The hon. Gentleman will not wish me to go at length into the problems which these Regulations generally give to low wage earners. He and I had an exchange about this at Question Time today. The fact is that these Statutory Instruments, which arise from the Social Security Act, 1966, do not help the low wage earner. The wage-stop is as firmly written into legislation as ever. Indeed, I think it fair to say that it is extended in a way which did not previously apply. It would be helpful to have a clearer view of what Regulation 4 involves.
It would be of assistance also to probe a little more the question of registration for employment. The class in which I am particularly interested in this connection are the disabled unemployed, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will go in rather greater detail into the effect of these provisions upon them. Again, I think that I am right in saying that the disabled unemployed do not qualify for the 9s. a week additional allowance even if unemployed for two years or more. Both sides of the House have been very much concerned about the position of the unemployed disabled.
The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that, when the Bill was debated on Second Reading, it was agreed that unemployment among the disabled was

175
five times the then national average. While not wishing to inject an acid note into these matters, I must tell the hon. Gentleman frankly that this position has, perhaps, become worse. I am dealing now with the registration provisions of Statutory Instrument No. 1065.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have noticed a disturbing letter recently in The Times on this subject from the psychiatric registrar of Brighton General Hospital. This is probably the first occasion on which we have authoritative evidence of the effect of the Selective Employment Tax upon the disabled. Therefore, the provisions of these Statutory Instruments in so far as they affect the unemployed disabled may be even more important than we realised when the 1966 Act was passing through the House.
The psychiatric registrar states in his letter that for several years one of the local mental hospitals has provided a group of patients to work in a factory in Crawley and that as each patient improved and left he was replaced by another living in the hospital, but that today all this has ended. I quote only briefly from the letter.
We must understand clearly that not only in this field, but also for the mentally and the physically handicapped, the effect of the Selective Employment Tax, whatever hon. Members opposite may have intended, may be much more drastic than we realise. Therefore, these three Statutory Instruments, containing the working regulations under the 1966 Act, are extremely important. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to say something about this aspect. I do not pursue it further, because I realise that I must not go far outside the general subject. All three Statutory Instruments, however, have a direct effect upon the matter which I have raised.
Equally concerning registration for employment, I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary can assist the House by saying whether he intends under one of these Statutory Instruments to divide the unemployment figures. I am well aware that I must not delve into the full unemployment figures, which are the concern of the Ministry of Labour, but I am concerned about the
176
unemployable. As both sides of the House well realise, this is a much more substantial figure than most people appreciate.
I should have thought it likely that under these three Statutory Instruments and under the parent Act we should be able to separate these sets of figures. For example, it might be possible conveniently under the parent Act, and more particularly under these three Statutory Instruments, to separate the figures, which at present appear as a lump sum figure of unemployment issued by the Ministry of Labour, into figures of the strictly unemployed, which are not germane to this discussion, and the unemployable, which are germane to the discussion and come under these three Statutory Instruments.
We have all been conscious that in time gone by what are parochially called the unemployment figures have contained a fairly substantial section of people who for one cause or another, very often through no fault of their own, are simply not able mentally or physically to do a job. It is that category of person which will, as I understand it, increasingly become the concern of the hon. Gentleman's Ministry under the parent Act, and the detail of it will be dealt with under these three Statutory Instruments. That is why I am raising with him this question at the present time, and why I would be very much obliged if he felt able to give us some idea of his thinking of the breakdown of the figures between the one group and another. I think that on general social grounds it would be of great benefit that any Government should be more accurate in this regard.
Finally—because, as I said, I do not want to detain the House any length of time—in Statutory Instrument No. 1067, which is the one which deals with the supplementary benefit, Regulation 2 states that the claims should be in writing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman—I am sure he will not—will not think I am on a trivial point, a pernickety point. Many of the people concerned with that Regulation are people who do not find it easy to express themselves in writing. Regrettably, we still have a certain number of people who are unable so to do; we certainly have a very large number of people who find it difficult

177
I personally have no doubt whatever, since we are here dealing with the National Assistance Board as was—and no finer group of public servants, in my view, ever existed than the Board now absorbed into the Ministry of Social Security, and I believe that on both sides of the House we have taken every opportunity, rightly, of paying tribute to them—that such persons as they, even in their new guise, will take every possible opportunity to assist people in making their claims, but I hope that I carry the hon. Gentleman with me when I say that it really is most important that anybody who has any feeling of pride, which is a feeling which, in the modern age, many of us have a great respect for, should have it as far as possible removed, and should have the process of claiming under this Instrument made as easy as it possibly can be.
I absolutely understand the action which the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend are taking and have taken in respect of the retirement pensioner. I appreciate that. May I say to him that I think it was particularly helpful that the right hon. Lady was kind enough to circulate all hon. Members and to pass to them the literature which she has circulated through the medium of her Ministry. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see that that expression of gratitude is passed back to her. It is very helpful to have Members who often have to advise constituents in this respect.
I understand and am appreciative of the action which was taken in respect of the retirement pensioners, but I am speaking now of those who are affected by Statutory Instrument No. 1067 and the various provisions of it and the necessity to make a claim. I am bound to say to the hon. Gentleman that I personally think this has certainly strengthened the views which were expressed to him from this side of the House when these matters were debated, that it would have been a good thing if a positive duty had been laid on his Department in this regard, and if it had not had to be left, in respect of these people, to the action of this Statutory Instrument. However, these arguments we have been over in the past, and clearly we must not resurrect them now. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that some light of publicity should be brought to these provisions,
178
to bring them to the attention of people who certainly ought to be claiming supplementary payments and who otherwise might not do so.
The hon. Gentleman knows that the outside world may not always easily follow our procedures. Therefore, any endeavour to draw attention to these matters requires the Opposition to appear outwardly to be against them. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that is the necessity of the procedure, and I merely set it on the record that we are not.
We were critical of certain aspects of the 1966 Act, but those are arguments which we cannot pursue now. We are concerned with the administrative arrangements arising out of that Act, and these three Statutory Instruments are all part of that machinery.
I hope profoundly that the arrangements which the hon. Gentleman has set in motion will move smoothly, and I hope, in the future, that he will be receptive to suggestions from either side of the House for administrative improvements in a field which is very close to and dear to the hearts of the vast majority of hon. Members on both sides and which mark a significant move forward in our provision for social security, although it is true that there has been dissension between us.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that, even at a late hour, it is not wasted time for him to have the opportunity of explaining a little more fully what is in his mind, and perhaps to answer the questions which I have raised.
10.32 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Norman Pentland): The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) has put forward a number of questions to me with his usual courtesy and clarity. I can assure him that I, for one, do not think that it is a waste of time to explain, if I can, many of the matters which he has raised.
Before I come to detailed points on the Regulations, I think that it might be helpful if, very briefly, I gave the background to the provisions embodied in the Regulations. The three sets of Regulations are made under the recent Ministry of Social Security Act to deal with the new scheme of supplementary benefits which was set

179
up to replace the old National Assistance scheme. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the new scheme comes into operation on 28th of this month.
However, it was necessary to make these Regulations as soon as possible after the Royal Assent to the Act in order not only to carry out the re-assessment needed to bring the two million existing National Assistance recipients into the new scheme, but also to allow the time for claims from other persons not receiving National Assistance to be dealt with before the appointed day arrived. The House may like to know that, up till today, about 400,000 new claims have been received already, and these are from people above pension age. That is a figure which speaks for itself.
Two of the sets of Regulations—the Claims and Payments Regulations and the General Regulations—deal with the administration of benefit under the new scheme. Some of the provisions of the Regulations are similar to the provisions of the various National Assistance Regulations which they replace. For example, there is in the General Regulations the rule about requirements to register for work as applied to applicants who are below pension age and who are fit and without dependant children to care for. The Regulations contain many new provisions and many refinements on the old ones, in keeping with the new status of supplementary benefit as an entitlement.
The hon. Gentleman asked how we would calculate weekly earnings when they were not immediately ascertainable. Paragraph 4(2) of the General Regulations deals with the situation where, for one reason or another, a person's net weekly earnings are not immediately ascertainable. The kind of circumstance envisaged is where the claimant of supplementary benefit is running a small business on his own. For example, he may be running a shop or a smallholding. If he keeps accounts—many of them will—it will often be possible to use these to estimate the annual profits, and from this to reach an average weekly figure of earnings from which entitlement to supplementary benefit can be decided.
But, as we know, many of the people who will claim supplementary benefit will
180
be in such a small way of business that they will not keep proper accounts of any kind, and even if they do their accounts will not be 'large enough to attract the attention of the Inland Revenue. For example, a person may have a small stall in a market, which he runs for one day a week, or he may have a very small shoe repair business. Many of us know that in country villages people have small shoe repair businesses which they run from their own homes.
In such cases the Commission's officers will have to make the best possible estimate in the individual circumstances, and, just as under National Assistance at the present time, they may well be helped by local knowledge about the generally recognised rate of profit on the turnover in businesses of this kind. For example, total purchases or sales over a period of time may provide a useful guide to the profits earned.
A rather different kind of case is that of the freelance writer who spends some time writing an article, and is paid a lump sum when his article is published. In these cases the Commission will generally average out the payment over the period when the writing was done, which, incidentally, will usually be to the claimant's advantage.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are a wide variety of occupations in which earnings will have to be calculated in the best way that the Commission can find. I am sure that this is obvious. The claimant has a safeguard in that if he considers that his profits have been over-assessed—I do not suppose that he will worry if it is the other way round—he can appeal to the local appeal tribunal which is particularly well equipped to take local factors into account. In short, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the whole emphasis will be placed by the Commission on being as fair as possible to the claimant.
The hon. Gentleman asked for the latest available information on the question of the disabled unemployed, the unemployable, and so on. The fact that a person is disabled does not necessarily mean that he cannot be registered for work. If he is able to perform even limited work, the Commission will help him, through the Ministry of Labour, to find suitable work. I think that that should be clearly understood. The only information that we have in regard to

181
these matters is what is handed on to us from the Ministry of Labour, because it is this Ministry's responsibility to deal with the employment position of disabled people, the unemployables, and so on. I have a good deal of information in regard to this, and if the hon. Gentleman would like me to send it to him I shall be only too glad to do so.
The hon. Member finally raised the question of the need to search out people who are entitled to supplementary benefit. As he knows, we had a full discussion of many of those aspects in Committee on the Ministry of Social Security Bill. As we pointed out then, under the new scheme we shall be breaking a lot of new ground in our efforts to ensure that people claim the supplementary benefit to which they are entitled. As I mentioned earlier, the publicity campaign at the start of the scheme has already brought in about 400,000 claims for supplementary pension, which, in our view, is a very good start. The Ministry is also issuing leaflets and claim forms about the scheme, and has produced a special leaflet about it for use by social workers, hospitals, doctors, and so on, because, again in our view, these people often know more than anyone else of individuals who will be helped by the new scheme.
Mr. van Straubenzee: Can the hon. Member clear up one point? I think he said that there were 400,000 new claims by people above pension age. Have I got that right?
Mr. Pentland: That is correct. The 400,000 claims which have already come along are from people over pensionable age. I am grateful to the hon. Member for the tribute he paid to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the very helpful leaflets and forms which we have already distributed.
An important development in this scheme will be that each person coming up to retirement age, and every women on widowhood, will be told about the supplementary benefit and invited to claim. Unless a person indicates that he or she is not interested, each invitation will be followed up, if necessary, by a visit, to ensure that as far as is humanly possible everyone who might be entitled in these groups claims the supplementary benefit.
182
Many people who are below pensionable age, and these are the people about whom the hon. Gentleman was concerned, may be entitled to the supplementary allowance. Two special classes which come to mind are women with dependent children and the physically and mentally handicapped. Here again, the Ministry will be producing special leaflets for each group, explaining its entitlement under the scheme. I am sure that the creation of one Ministry to cover contributory and non-contributory benefits will be a most important factor in encouraging people to claim these benefits. However, I can assure the hon. Member that our Ministry will keep a very careful eye on developments to ensure, once the scheme has got going, that anything further which can be done by us is done, to see that everyone entitled to benefit claims it.
I hope that I have covered most of the points about which the hon. Member was concerned, and I hope that he will accept the undertaking I have given on these Regulations.
10.44 p.m.
Mr. van Straubenzee: I am sure the whole House is once again much indebted to the Minister for meeting the points I have raised. He has a remarkable facility for anticipating what I am going to raise. I am grateful for the various answers that he has given. I also accept his invitation, and I shall be very grateful to receive the information which he has about the situation of the disabled unemployed. I should be glad to receive that.
It has been extremely valuable for the House to be given the figure of 400,000 new claims from people above pensionable age;we can all rejoice at this. But it is precisely those above pensionable age to whom the right hon. Lady has been directing her attention—most effectively. That was the publicity which she was kind enough to circulate to hon. Members. While I understand the special leaflets prepared for the two categories which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, it surely re-emphasises the need for special contact with those likely to be affected, but who do not make the claim.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that the debate has helped some of those to come forward and to realise that they are emphatically not claiming

183
charity—but something—as they may not have felt in the past—which they have every right to claim. In view of the way in which the hon. Gentleman has responded to the debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

HOLIDAY TRAVEL ALLOWANCE
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ioan L. Evans.]
10.46 p.m.
Mr. Mark Woodnutt: In raising the subject of the £50 travel allowance, I wish to make three main points, each of which is an indictment of this Government and their hasty and ill-conceived policies. The first is the futility of Government policy in thinking that our balance of payments will be substantially improved by imposing this absurd restriction. The second is the hardship caused to many elderly folk who follow the sun during the winter months and winter modestly abroad. The third is the complete disregard of Her Majesty's Government for the sanctity of contracts and the dishonour which they are bringing on the name of Great Britain and individuals who are told to try to avoid contracts into which they have faithfully entered.
Of these three points, the third is by far the most important, because most of us would rather bear any hardship to preserve our good name. Most people realise that our present economic difficulties were caused by the present Government by losing the confidence not only of people abroad but of people in this country. Most of us also realise that the drastic measures announced by the Prime Minister on 20th July will make matters worse. The £50 travel allowance was one of them.
To demonstrate the futility of this, I would remind the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that, annually, six million Britons go abroad for their holidays. The British Travel Association says that they spend the equivalent of £300 million—an average of £50 per head. It is clear from that that Mr. Average, Mr. Just Below Average and, possibly, Mr. Just Above Average will not be affected
184
by the restriction. Nor will the businessman who gets his £10 a day, as he should, because he is doing a worth-while job.
The only people who will be affected are the marginal ones who spend more than £50 a head. We all know that there are many ways and means of avoiding the restriction by reciprocal arrangements with people abroad. It is also as well for the Financial Secretary to remember that three million visitors a year come to this country, who, according to the estimates of the British Travel Association, spend no less than £330 million annually. I am informed by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor), who is one of our leading hoteliers and whom I am pleased to see in his place, that foreign tourist industries are exerting the maximum pressure on their Governments to bring in reciprocal restrictions to cut down the amount of money spent in this country. If that happens it could be disastrous for this enormous invisible export.
The Government's policy in this matter is complete nonsense, is ill-conceived and was put through with undue haste. I am mostly concerned about the disregard of the sanctity of contract. It is disgraceful to instruct British subjects to act dishonourably in seeking to break contracts which they have faithfully entered into, and I am certain that if the right hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Cousins) were here, after what he has said about the sanctity of contract between union and employer, he would agree with me.
I draw the attention of the House to a case in my constituency, the Isle of Wight, about which I have given the Financial Secretary due notice. It is the case of a Mr. Reachill, his wife and two sisters-in-law, who are all over 65 years of age and who have the habit every year of spending the four winter months, December to March, in a warmer climate.
Earlier this year they entered into a binding contract, by an exchange of letters with a person in Madeira, to rent an apartment for four months, from 1st December, at £50 per month. On 13th July they remitted, through their bankers, a deposit of £50. It was a week later, on 20th July, that the Prime Minister took his sledge-hammer to crack a nut and announced in the House the £50

185
travel restriction. Two days later Mr. Reachill wrote to me and asked how he was affected. I replied:
"Exceptions obviously can be made…"
and I suggested that he put in his application immediately. I telephoned the Treasury and was told that the Department would consider exceptions, but on only two grounds. The first was on health grounds—if one had a doctor's certificate saying that one must go abroad—and the second was on the grounds of there being an enforceable contract which could not be broken.
By this time Mr. Reachill had heard from the Exchange Control authorities and had been told that he could have only £50 per head. Meanwhile, he had to pay £200 under a binding contract. I told Mr. Reachill to reapply because the Treasury would consider exceptions if there were enforceable contract which could not be broken. He reapplied, for the modest sum of £125 per head for the four people, to include £200 rent for the period of four months. Mr. Reachill reapplied through his bank on 23rd August and, as he had heard nothing by 5th October, I wrote to the Chief Secretary of the Treasury, who replied within two days. To my astonishment, he wrote:
"People in their position "—
that is, Mr. Reachill, his wife and two sisters-in-law
"who, before the July announcement of travel restrictions entered into commitments in respect of holiday travel after 1st November, are expected to exercise every endeavour to obtain release from those commitments in so far as they are unable or unwilling to fulfil them in the new circumstances".
This is a disgraceful thing for the Government to tell a British subject to do and has absolutely no consideration for the man at the other end who signed the contract to let his property. I wrote to my constituent and passed on this information. I explained what the Government wanted him to do, and I quote my constituent's reply to sum up my attitude and the attitude of every decent person. He wrote:
"The suggestion in the Treasury letter that I connive to break our contract by endeavouring to induce the owner of the apartment in Madeira to release me from my obligation is, to say the least, a most dishonourable one. As an Englishman of some integrity I cannot agree to have any part in this undertaking."
This expresses my own opinion, and I think that the only honourable course
186
for Her Majesty's Government to adopt is not only to give my constituent the allowance for which he has asked in order to enable him to fulfil his contract, but to do the same for everyone else in the country who is in the same position.
I have always been proud of the fact that it is stated all over the world that an Englishman's word is his bond; what is the foreigner to think of our word if now we tear up written agreements?
10.55 p.m.
Sir Charles Taylor: The story told by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) is a shocking one. That anyone should be caused to break a contract by force majeure of Government action is a most dishonourable act against our country.
When, during and after the war, we had sweet rationing, everyone took up their ration because they thought that that was what they were entitled to. I find that now the £50 allowance is being taken by anyone wishing to go abroad and that those who perhaps have been in the habit of taking their holidays abroad, instead of taking £30 or £35 as they have done in the past, are now taking up the full £50. I therefore do not believe that this restriction will save us very much money.
I am more concerned about the effect of this regulation on the tourist trade to this country. I must here speak of something I know about, and refer to the Grosvenor House Hotel, of which I have the honour to be chairman. The Grosvenor House last year had 52 per cent. American clients or guests, and 75 per cent. foreign visitors. At the cash desk—which is not a bank but just a little cash desk—we cashed nearly £1 million worth of foreign currency, foreign money and travellers' cheques to the benefit of this country. In addition, we have in the past year had the Selective Employment Tax put on us, which will cost us £80,000 a year. We are concerned in this business about what is, for its size, probably the biggest foreign currency earner in the whole country.
I am worried, too, about the effect that this sort of action will have in European countries. I recently had the honour

187
to be a British representative at the International Hotels Association meeting in Germany. I found the feeling to be: "Why should we put up your hotel brochures in our hotels when there is no reciprocity? Why should our national associations put up posters saying 'Come to Britain' when there is no reciprocity? We should prefer to spend our money with the French, the Austrians, the Swiss, the Scandinavians, and the Americans, who are much freer to travel than the British."
Has the Financial Secretary heard of any retaliation? Has he discussed this matter with the British Travel Association? Has the Prime Minister, the Government or the hon. and learned Gentleman yet received any representations from the International Hotels Association, which is an international body in which the British take a lively part, about this £50 travel allowance?
11.0 p.m.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): Until I heard the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt), I should have thought it unnecessary to remind the House why it was necessary to introduce the restrictions on travel expenditure. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced a whole series of measures on 20th July last designed to get our economy into balance, and included among them certain exchange control measures which had a direct and speedy impact on our balance of payments. The most important of these was the restriction on travel expenditure.
Expenditure on travel outside the sterling area has been rising rapidly. The debit on travel account with non-sterling countries has risen from £112 million in 1958 to £215 million in 1965. If the restrictions had not been introduced, the figure would have been even higher next year. The hon. Member quoted some figures put out by the British Travel Association designed to show that foreign visitors to this country were spending more than British travellers going abroad. I am afraid that those figures were based on a false comparison, because in one case they included the cost of fares and in the other they did not. The fact is that the travel expenditure of British travellers abroad has been very much higher than
188
the earnings of our tourist trade in this country.
Sir C. Taylor: Including the cost of purchases? If people come here they buy many things in the shops. Is that taken into account?
Mr. MacDermot: Yes, including the total expenditure in this country.
These restrictions were not unexpected, and I think they have been generally accepted. I was asked by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) about the international effect and repercussions. We have had no representations from the International Hotels Association—to answer his question directiy—and the restrictions we introduced have received the approval of the International Monetary Fund, which is necessary as we subscribe to that Fund, which of course operates a surveillance over measures of this kind.
Various suggestions have been made in the Press and elsewhere of ways in which these restrictions can be evaded, but I must make clear that I have yet to see one such way which does not involve illegality and liability to prosecution. I hope that this will be clearly understood. I think the ordinary man and woman in this country is essentially law-abiding and will not wish to damage the country's interests by "fiddling" the travel allowance. Because they recognise the need, most people observe the rules and will put up with inconvenience as part of a worth-while effort to put the economy on a sound footing.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight spoke particularly of the position of the elderly. We have not overlooked the essential needs of the elderly. If an elderly person, or for that matter a young person, is suffering from a serious illness or disability and his doctor recommends that it is desirable that he should spend a period for treatment or recuperation in a non-sterling area country, a special allowance of up to £7 a day for three months will be provided. A similar amount is also made available for a companion if the doctor so recommends, but no doctor's recommendation is necessary in the case of a husband or wife who is over 60. Special consideration will also be given to applications for an additional allowance for elderly people to visit close relatives.

189
These allowances compare favourably with those which were granted by the previous Administration at a time when there was a comparable travel allowance. If one goes back to the period when the allowance was £35 a year, the health travel allowance was nil in what was known as the American account area in those days, particularly North and South America, and £4 a day for a patient or companion for three months. When the basic allowance was raised in January, 1955, to £100 a year, the allowance was £4 a day for a patient and £3 a day for a companion for three months outside the American account area. In May, 1959, again when the basic allowance was £100, it was £5 a day for a patient and companion for six months. So I think it will be seen that the allowances that we have made to meet the special position of the sick and elderly compare very favourably with what was introduced before.
The exchange control authorities—these controls are operated by the Bank of England under delegated authority from the Treasury—will go a long way to meet special cases, and they have authority to do so. But I cannot accept that because certain people have more leisure they should be allowed more foreign exchange. If the expected savings are to be achieved, we cannot make exceptions for anyone who would like it, and the line has to be drawn somewhere and we think we have gone as far as is reasonable.
The hon. Member raised the question of the sanctity of contracts. I must say that listening to some of his arguments and some of the quotations from the letter I wondered whether a better phrase would not be "sanctimoniousness". The question of contracts arises in relation to commitments which were entered into before 20th July when the new restrictions were introduced. There are obviously bound to be difficulties during a transitional period. We have had to adopt a policy that is realistic and, as far as possible, fair to all, including those who have not made commitments in advance.
To meet the transition problem we made provision for an interim period between the end of July and the end of October before the full restrictions came into effect. Broadly speaking, during this interim period those who
190
had holiday plans were allowed sufficient currency to carry them out on a reasonable scale. But this transition period has now finished, and for holidays starting after 1st November the general rule is that no additional allowances are being given whenever they were first arranged, but we do not deduct from the basic allowance any payments which were actually made before 21st July.
The policy is that where people have entered into commitments they are expected to do what they can to obtain a release from them. There is nothing whatever dicreditable about this. It is perfectly proper and not uncommon for a party to a contract to ask to be released from some or all of his obligations when circumstances have changed to such an extent that it is difficult or even impossible to comply with them. Usually the other party will agree to the release, sometimes unconditionally and sometimes on terms. In the case of travel bookings, in the vast majority of cases it is practicable for people to obtain a release.
We recognise that there may be some cases where, despite every reasonable effort, this does not prove practicable, and in such cases where a legally enforceable commitment is involved and failure to comply is likely to result in a resident being successfully sued, we are prepared to consider special provision to enable the legal commitment to be met in addition to the normal basic allowance of £50 in foreign currency.
This policy accords, I suggest, not only with common sense but with the generally recognised international procedure. For example, there is a recommendation in the G.A.T.T. about the handling of pre-zero contracts when quantitative import restrictions are imposed, and the relevant recommendation is that goods which are covered by an adequately confirmed prior order in the course of normal business at the date when restrictions are announced and are not marketable elsewhere without appreciable loss should receive special consideration on an individual case basis. This is a process parallel to the policy which we have followed. We have asked—and it is all that we have asked—that people shall take reasonable steps, in effect, to try to market their obligations elsewhere. I see the hon. Member for

191
Eastbourne shaking his head. Why is it not a comparison?
Sir C. Taylor: Because the G.A.T.T. agreements were made many years ago, and everybody knew what to expect from them. But this is a new law that has been imposed on the country suddenly, and it imposes certain obligations on subjects in their contracts abroad.
Mr. MacDermot: I point out to the hon. Gentleman that it is not a new law. It is a law under the Exchange Control Act, which dates back to 1947. If we are talking legalities, the hon. Gentleman's constituents, when they made their contract were under the obligation at that time, before 20th July, to obtain exchange control consent to remit the moneys abroad under their then contract. There had been plenty of speculation in the Press about the likelihood of the introduction of travel control restrictions of this kind. There is a very fair comparison with the imposition of quantitative restrictions, and it is recognised internationally that where measures of this kind must be introduced to safeguard a country's balance of payments position—and this was recognised in our case by the I.M.F.—this is the proper way to deal with existing contracts. This is exactly what we have done. We are not asking people to break their contracts. We are asking them to take reasonable steps to obtain a release from existing obligations, and there are several ways in which that can be done.
Sir C. Taylor: Wriggle out of them.
Mr. MacDermot: It is not a question of wriggling out of them. The hon. Gentleman is a hotelier himself. How many people book rooms in his hotel and find for some reason that they cannot meet their obligation? They approach him and ask whether they can be released from their obligations, and I imagine, as the hon. Gentleman has a well run hotel, that in the vast majority of cases he says, "Of course". In most cases he suffers no loss because he can relet the rooms to somebody else. It is perfectly normal practice, and this is why I suggest that there is an air of sanctimoniousness about the argument. It is a normal practice in everyday business transactions and in this trade. An enormous number of bookings are made in the travel business,
192
and for one reason or another people seek to be released from their obligations and are released, and it is in the interests of the other contractors in most cases if they are.
Even if the other party to the contract, the person who let the flat in Madeira in this case, is not willing to release the hon. Gentleman's constituent from the obligation, he is free to find someone else prepared to take on part of the obligation and he can assign it to him. This is done by travel agents over and over again. Very many travel agents had binding contracts when these restrictions were introduced and in most cases they have been able to adjust them either by assigning their contractual rights to someone else—very often travel agents outside the Sterling area—or by obtaining release from the contracts. That is all that we ask, and it is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask. If after due efforts have been made and reasonable steps have been taken, it proves impossible for them to obtain release, we are prepared to consider further applications.
Mr. Woodnutt: For the small number of cases there must be from 1st November onwards, does the hon. and learned Gentleman really think that it is worth going to this trouble to put people to all this embarrassment and inconvenience for the saving of what must be a minute amount of foreign currency?
Mr. MacDermot: I do not agree that it is a minute amount. If we did not think it worth while we would not have done it. When one imposes restrictions of this kind, it is important that people feel that they are being administered with fairness and justice as between different people. There is no reason why people who happen to have made their booking at an earlier date should enjoy a privilege denied to other people who booked later, simply because of the date they made the booking.
Mr. Woodnutt: Why 1st November and not 30th November?
Mr. MacDermot: One must choose a date. We introduced this on 20th July. We had an interim period, and the full restrictions began to bite as from 1st November. There is no question here of our causing people to break a contract by force majeure, to use the phrase of

193
the hon. Member for Eastbourne, nor any question, to use the words of the hon. Gentleman's constituent, that we are asking people to connive to break their contracts by endeavouring to induce the owner to release them from their obligation. No breach of contract is involved in asking someone to release one from an existing obligation. There is nothing dishonourable about it at all, and all this talk about an Englishman's integrity is entirely irrelevant to the argument.
What these people are asking is that, because they made a booking, whatever it was, and paid a deposit seven days before the restrictions were introduced, they should be entitled to a four-month holiday abroad and to escape the exchange control measures. We do not consider that that is a reasonable way to operate the controls. What we ask is that they shall seek to obtain a reasonable release from their contracts. There is no reason why they should not spend part of their holiday abroad.
194
If there is some special reason, on health grounds, why they need to spend four months in Madeira, then, of course, they can make a special application on those grounds. But I do not understand the case to have been put forward on that basis at all. Therefore, if they do not come within any of the exceptions, we would expect them to make the reasonable efforts which any travel agent would make, and which anyone else in their position would make, either to try to dispose of the rights which they have obtained to some other people, or to obtain a release from their contracts from the person with whom they have contracted.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at a quarter past Eleven o'clock.

LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
  Tree Planting (Exchequer Grants)
  Tree Planting (Exchequer Grants)
  Command Papers (Aims)
  Command Papers (Aims)
  Allotments (Questionnaire)
  Allotments (Questionnaire)
  Leasehold Reform
  Leasehold Reform
  Coastline (Regional Conferences)
  Coastline (Regional Conferences)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Palace of Westminster (Pictures)
  Palace of Westminster (Pictures)
  Malaysia and Singapore (Buildings and Installations)
  Malaysia and Singapore (Buildings and Installations)
  Bricks (Surplus Stock)
  Bricks (Surplus Stock)
  Industrial Monuments
  Industrial Monuments
  Building and Construction Industries (Information)
  Building and Construction Industries (Information)
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Forms SP.1 (Supply)
  Forms SP.1 (Supply)
  Bronchitis (Working Days Lost)
  Bronchitis (Working Days Lost)
  Earnings-Related Benefits
  Earnings-Related Benefits
  Pensioners (Earnings Limit)
  Pensioners (Earnings Limit)
  Appeal Tribunals
  Appeal Tribunals
  Retirement and Widows' Pensions
  Retirement and Widows' Pensions
  Disabled Persons (Allowances)
  Disabled Persons (Allowances)
  Poor Households (Survey)
  Poor Households (Survey)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Invalid Tricycles (Repairs)
  Invalid Tricycles (Repairs)
  Disabled Persons (Nursing Facilities)
  Disabled Persons (Nursing Facilities)
  Population (England and Wales)
  Population (England and Wales)
  Health Centres, Wales
  Health Centres, Wales
HOSPITALS
  Pay Beds
  Pay Beds
  Frenchay Hospital, Bristol (Waiting Time)
  Frenchay Hospital, Bristol (Waiting Time)
  Portsmouth Group Hospital Management Committee (Expenditure)
  Portsmouth Group Hospital Management Committee (Expenditure)
  Dorking Hospital (Cataract Operations)
  Dorking Hospital (Cataract Operations)
  Out-Patients
  Out-Patients
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Government Training Centres (Instructors)
  Government Training Centres (Instructors)
  Self-Employed Workers
  Self-Employed Workers
  Redundant Workers, Birmingham
  Redundant Workers, Birmingham
  Selective Employment Tax (Wales)
  Selective Employment Tax (Wales)
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Occupational Hygiene
  Occupational Hygiene
  Bedford Employment Exchange (Professional and Executive Register)
  Bedford Employment Exchange (Professional and Executive Register)
  Wages and Salaries (Period of Severe Restraint)
  Wages and Salaries (Period of Severe Restraint)
  Adult Workers (Retraining)
  Adult Workers (Retraining)
  HUNGARY (OUTSTANDING CLAIMS)
  HUNGARY (OUTSTANDING CLAIMS)
  FOREIGN OFFICE (MINISTERIAL VISITS)
  FOREIGN OFFICE (MINISTERIAL VISITS)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  NAZI CONCENTRATION CAMP INMATES (COMPENSATION)
  NAZI CONCENTRATION CAMP INMATES (COMPENSATION)
  ADEN
  ADEN
  MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (OVERSEAS VISITS)
  MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (OVERSEAS VISITS)
  UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (OVERSEAS VISITS)
  UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (OVERSEAS VISITS)
  FOREIGN SECRETARY (BONN VISIT)
  FOREIGN SECRETARY (BONN VISIT)
SCOTLAND
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  SELECT COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE (VOTING METHODS)
  SELECT COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE (VOTING METHODS)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Development Plan, Hertfordshire (Public Inquiry)
  Development Plan, Hertfordshire (Public Inquiry)
  National Trust Properties (Rent-Free Accommodation)
  National Trust Properties (Rent-Free Accommodation)
HOUSING
  Controlled Tenancies, Reading (Rents)
  Controlled Tenancies, Reading (Rents)
  Land
  Land
NATIONAL FINANCE
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Information Officers
  Information Officers
  Home Information Services
  Home Information Services
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  Eire (Currency)
  Eire (Currency)
  Trading Profits (Income Tax)
  Trading Profits (Income Tax)
  Information Services (Overseas Expenditure)
  Information Services (Overseas Expenditure)
  Trade Union Subscriptions (Tax)
  Trade Union Subscriptions (Tax)
  Rhodesia (Loans)
  Rhodesia (Loans)
  Space Heating (Rateable Value)
  Space Heating (Rateable Value)
  Rhodesia (British Assets)
  Rhodesia (British Assets)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Wormwood Scrubs Prison (Security)
  Wormwood Scrubs Prison (Security)
  Murders
  Murders
  George Blake
  George Blake
  Prisons
  Prisons
  Gaming (Registration of Premises)
  Gaming (Registration of Premises)
  Fire Service (Inquiry)
  Fire Service (Inquiry)
WALES
  Leasehold Reform
  Leasehold Reform
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Building Programme
  School Building Programme
  School Milk
  School Milk
  Teacher-Trainees
  Teacher-Trainees
  New Schools (Wales)
  New Schools (Wales)
  MR. KOSYGIN (VISIT)
  MR. KOSYGIN (VISIT)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Royal Navy (Ships)
  Royal Navy (Ships)
  Mr. Z. S. Szatowski
  Mr. Z. S. Szatowski
  Armed Forces (Recruits)
  Armed Forces (Recruits)
  U.N. Force, Southern Africa
  U.N. Force, Southern Africa
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  White Fish Authority (Price Consultations)
  White Fish Authority (Price Consultations)
  Agricultural Holdings, Wales (Employees)
  Agricultural Holdings, Wales (Employees)
  Farmers (Selective Employment Tax)
  Farmers (Selective Employment Tax)
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Rhodesia (Francistown Radio)
  Rhodesia (Francistown Radio)
  Zambia (British Airlifts)
  Zambia (British Airlifts)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Coal Industry, Wales (Employees)
  Coal Industry, Wales (Employees)
  Blast Furnaces (Closures)
  Blast Furnaces (Closures)
POST OFFICE
  Post Offices, Croydon
  Post Offices, Croydon
ROADS
  Tunnels and Bridges (Grant)
  Tunnels and Bridges (Grant)
  Maintenance (Local Rate Revenue)
  Maintenance (Local Rate Revenue)
  A45 (Traffic Count)
  A45 (Traffic Count)
RAILWAYS
  Mileage
  Mileage
TRANSPORT
  Motor Vehicles (Mud Flaps)
  Motor Vehicles (Mud Flaps)
PORTS
  Felixstowe Docks (Traffic)
  Felixstowe Docks (Traffic)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Limited Liability Companies
  Limited Liability Companies
  Czechoslovakia and Hungary (Trade)
  Czechoslovakia and Hungary (Trade)
  Southern Africa (British Invisibles)
  Southern Africa (British Invisibles)
  Travel Trade (Selective Employment Tax)
  Travel Trade (Selective Employment Tax)
  Copper (Imports)
  Copper (Imports)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Wales)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Wales)

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

TELEVISION DETECTOR VANS
2.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: 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 what is the present annual cost of operating detector vans to track down television licence evasion, and by how much this cost is likely to go up when the fleet of vans is increased, as recently announced by the Postmaster General.]
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, about £75,000, which will rise to £150,000 when the fleet is doubled.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Would he not agree that this form of collecting taxes is setting a thoroughly bad precedent?
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I understand that the equation of the cost of the fleet of vans to what is produced is about 27 per cent., which means therefore that there is a profit of about 73 per cent. on the investment, which I think is quite good. No doubt this is also of benefit to those who desire to pay their taxes.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, since there is said to be something like £10 millions worth of revenue not collected, can the noble Lord tell us how long he thinks it will be, bearing in mind the figure he has given us, before all the licences due will be paid?
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I am afraid there will always be a certain number of unfortunate citizens who do not perform their duties; but progress is being made.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, while I thoroughly support the efforts to get the money in and to thwart the tax evader, may I ask the noble Lord whether there are any technical means by which a van can tell whether or not a licence has been paid?
A NOBLE LORD: This is a technical question.
LORD SORENSEN: I am reminded by my colleague that this is a technical question. Nevertheless, I would say that there are available means by which the presence of certain sets can be detected, and then, of course, investigation can be made to see whether the owner of the set has paid the tax.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, why do the Government not require dealers in broadcasting sets not to sell a set until a licence has been purchased? The noble Lord will be aware that the wired broadcasting companies have to be quite sure, before they make a connection to a customer, that the customer has a television licence. Why cannot dealers in new or secondhand sets be required to ensure that their customers have a licence? In this way, many millions of pounds which is badly needed by the B.B.C. could be collected.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that suggestion. In fact, it has been considered and I understand that some announcement will be made about this in due course.

ACCESS TO PARLIAMENT DURING PROCESSION
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to make a short Statement.
The House will be aware that the President of Pakistan will be arriving in this country on Thursday, November 17, to commence a State Visit. Her Majesty will meet the President at the Tate Gallery at 2.45 p.m. and the procession will then drive along the Embankment past the Palace of Westminster and up Whitehall. The House of Lords may be sitting at the time the procession passes and I have been concerned to ensure that the right of access to the

1065
palace of Westminster should be enjoyed by Press and should not be interrupted.
The Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis will do everything possible to comply with the Sessional Order of this House directing him to keep the passages through the streets leading to the House free and open during the Session of Parliament, and the road will be kept open for Peers until the last possible moment before the procession actually passes the Palace of Westminster and be reopened as soon as the procession has passed. It is also intended to keep the footpath in front of the Palace of Westminster empty, and, to assist Peers, the Commissioner of Police will make available windscreen labels with directions on the reverse on the most suitable routes to be followed to the House. Your Lordships will appreciate, however, that while the procession is actually passing the Palace of Westminster, access may be temporarily impeded, although the Underground subway will still be available. The period during which access will be limited will be very short and any inconvenience to your Lordships will be kept to the minimum.
May I also inform the House that at about 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Champion will be making a Statement on the visit of Mr. Kosygin to this country.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, is it known at about what time the procession will be passing the Palace of Westminster?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, as I have just said, Her Majesty will be meeting the President at the Tate Gallery at 2.45 p.m. It is not for me to state the duration of that meeting, but I would imagine that the procession would return at about 3.30 p.m.

VETERINARY SURGEONS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons on Friday last, agreed to, with Amendments the said Amendments printed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 45.

REDUNDANCY FUND CONTRIBUTIONS ORDER 1966
2.43 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, I beg to move that the Redundancy Fund Contributions Order 1966, a copy of which was laid before the House on October 25 last, be approved. The effect of the Order is to increase the the weekly Redundancy Fund contribution paid by employers from 5d. to 10d. per man, and from 2d. to 5d. per woman. In introducing the Redundancy Payments Bill in another place my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour, in referring to the cost of this scheme, said that none of the relevant factors, namely, number of redundancies, age and length of service of workers, and future changes in earnings, could be foreseen with precision and that only experience would show where any adjustments would be needed. Although two special surveys of redundancies known to employment exchanges were made at the time, firm forecasts could not be made on the basis of this information—for example, since the introduction of the scheme, it has been found that the scheme itself affects attitudes and practices in industry. With these reservations, our calculations produced a mid-point estimate of an annual payment of £19,000,000, of which £13,600,000 would be borne by the Fund. To meet this and cover contingencies, weekly contributions were fixed at 5d. for a man and 2d. for a woman, producing an estimated incomes of £18,000,000 a year.
These rates were criticised at the time as being pessimistic. The reverse has proved to be the case, and for two main reasons. First, claims on the Fund have been running at an annual rate of 125,000, compared with a mid-point estimate of 105,000. Secondly, the proportion of over-forties getting redundancy payment has been much higher than in the pre-Act surveys—more over-forties means higher total payments because of the higher scale of payments for years of service over forty-one and because on average older workers have longer service. It also increases the proportion of the total payments made by the Fund, because this increases for years of service over forty-one. As a result the average per capita payment from the Fund has been running since mid-April at £180

1067
compared with a figure of £130 based on the pre-Act surveys. The Fund has been running at a loss of £100,000 a week on average since mid-April. The balance, which was then £2,600,000, has been exhausted and our borrowing from the Consolidated Fund to date totals £350,000.
There is no question, therefore, that an increase in the contribution is needed promptly. It is needed for three purposes: first, to clear this deficit; secondly, to enable the Fund to build up an adequate reserve so that we do not find ourselves again in a situation like the present, and thirdly, to cover the future likely level of expenditure. In estimating this future level we must expect heavier claims on the Fund because of the recent increase in the level of unemployment. It is not possible to put a precise figure on future trends. Nor is it in any event possible to establish an exact correlation between redundancy payments and the unemployment figures. There is, therefore, inevitably, a considerable element of judgment in any attempt to forecast future expenditure from the Fund. In the short run we must obviously expect high expenditure, say £650,000 a week over the next six months, compared with £430,000 a week over the last six months. It may take another twelve months, with expenditure on an average of £600,000 a week, before we get near normal again, say, from the Spring of 1968.
On present trends the deficit might reach £4,500,000 by the beginning of February. The Minister's borrowing powers under Section 25 of the Act are limited to £8,000,000, though this can be raised to £20,000,000 subject to Treasury consent and Affirmative Resolution of Parliament. But any such delaying action would merely aggravate the problem and force us to make a larger increase in the end. In the Government's view, therefore, contributions must be increased promptly, and the earliest practical date is February 6, 1967. The Minister had originally intended to increase costs to one shilling for a man and 6d. for a woman. But after consulting the C.B.I., the T.U.C., and nationalised industries, who all felt that this was on the high side and that he was trying to do too much too quickly, he decided, after considerable
1068
deliberation, to fix the contribution at 10d. and 5d. This will almost certainly mean that the Fund will remain in deficit for over a year, but there should be a small credit balance by the Spring, 1968. It is of course unfortunate that we have to make this increase. But the addition to labour costs will be minimal—on average, less than one-tenth of one per cent. Finally, in commending the Order to the House may I say that the Government recognise that there is a considerable element of judgment in the provisions it is making for the future. If in the end the Fund should recover more quickly than anticipated and build up a satisfactory reserve in a comparatively short period, the Minister will, at that stage, review the contribution I am now asking the House to approve. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Redundancy Fund Contributions Order 1966, laid before the House on October 25, 1966, be approved.—(Lord Champion.)
2.48 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Champion, for his explanation of this Order and to congratulate him on the skill with which he has wrapped up the perfectly obvious fact that the Government have guessed very wrong. My Lords they have "thought of a number" and they have now had to double it. The real truth of the matter is that what one might call the mutual insurance premiums for redundancy payments are being doubled while the benefits remain the same. We accept, of course, that it was not possible to judge with precision (that is what the noble Lord said), what the cost would turn out to be; but there is a considerable difference between judging the matter with precision and being 100 per cent. wrong.
The noble Lord says that this Fund will remain in deficit until the beginning of 1968, and by that time he hopes that it will come once again into credit and, presumably, that a reserve fund will be built up. All I have to say to him is that the Government will have to alter their policy very considerably and pursue a consistent policy instead of, as in this case, having not only had a lack of consistent policy but a lack of any policy at all. I have only to remind your Lordships that the Prime Minister said, as

1069
recently as last March, that he did not expect any considerable increase in unemployment.
The two main factors here are the increase in unemployment and the higher incidence of redundancies among older people than was expected. Obviously we cannot oppose this Order. The Fund must be put into balance. But I hope that the noble Lord will not say, every time increases of this kind are proposed in the burdens that have to be carried by industry, that they are only "minimal" burdens. They are increasing all the time, sometimes necessarily, as, for example, in the industrial training levies, and sometimes less necessarily, when perhaps the burden could have been more wisely spread. I do not think that the noble Lord makes his case any better by claiming that this is only a little one, because they all mount up. I cannot advise your Lordships to oppose this Order, but I deplore it.
LORD MCCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: My Lords, this seems to me to be an unfortunate case. It is difficult, over the Table, to follow exactly the figures given by the noble Lord, although I am very grateful to him for the care with which he explained the Order. It would appear that the costs are going up from 130 to 180 units, and therefore the charges must be doubled. I fail to see why the charges should be doubled, except from the Exchequer point of view. Obviously the heavy hand of the Treasury has been in this matter.
Why should it be necessary to build up a sizeable reserve? These payments could be adjusted and paid in and out as we go along. Why do the Treasury wish to build up a reserve?—because they always want to mulct every penny piece they can out of industry and everybody else. I should have thought that at this time the Government would have taken more care of industry, and would not have wished to put on to industry, both nationalised and private, more than was absolutely necessary. Even in this last hour, I would ask the Minister to make sure that directly the Fund is in balance again these charges will be reduced, and not to hand everything over to the dead hand of the Treasury.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords, though of course they have not received this draft
1070
Order with any great cheers. Both noble Lords have pointed to the fact that it is not a good argument to say that this is "only a little one". I must admit that there is a great deal in this viewpoint. When asking for something from the taxpayer, we all tend to say, "It is only £10 million or £30 million", and when we take something out of industry, to say, "It is only one-tenth of 1 per cent." But we recognise that all this has to be taken out of industry, and I agree with the noble Lords that we must be very careful about this and not overdo it, as Governments can do—perhaps I might almost say "tend to do"; but I must not say that because then I might be in trouble elsewhere.
I think we have done the right thing in this connection, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said about our failure to forecast accurately. Clearly, it would have been impossible to forecast this, because the amount of data available to us was so limited. We are instituting something new. We thought that we had arrived at the right figures in 5d. and 2d., but this has proved not to be the case. Therefore I think it is right that we should ask industry to face this additional charge in order that we may carry on this policy—and it is the right one—of securing that there is a greater degree of mobility of labour. It is part of an economic policy designed to ensure that people are being employed in those employments where they can best serve industry and the nation. Despite the criticisms, I believe that the House will pass this sensible Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL [H.L.]
2.56 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a Consolidation Bill, and therefore it will go in due course to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

INDUSTRIAL INJURIES AND DISEASES (OLD CASES) BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This also is a Consolidation Bill, and accordingly the same observations apply.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

BARBADOS INDEPENDENCE BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment. Report received.

LAND COMMISSION BILL
2.59 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In case I should forget it later, may I say that later to-day I have to fulfil a public engagement, which Lord Chancellors cannot avoid, and I hope that your Lordships will excuse me if, unfortunately, I have to leave before the end of the debate.
The proposition upon which this Bill is founded is a simple one. It is that the value attached to land by the right to develop it is value which has been substantially created by the community, and the community is therefore entitled to recover some part of it. This is a proposition that has been debated many times over many years; indeed, it has been discussed over centuries and in many kinds of circumstances. Very few, I think, would now disagree with it, and therefore I will not waste time debating it. I will turn instead to the methods by which we propose to achieve that end.
There have been many attempts throughout history to recover for the community a proper share of development value. For
1072
a variety of reasons these have all been frustrated. But we can learn from the lessons of the past and it is therefore with confidence in its future that we commend this Bill to Parliament.
The White Paper on the Land Commission, which was published in September, 1965, set out two main objectives. The first was to secure that the right land is available at the right time for the implementation of national, regional and local plans; and the second to secure that a substantial part of the development value created by the community returns to the community, and that the burden of the cost of land for essential purposes is reduced. The Bill sets out to achieve these two main objectives by establishing a Land Commission with two main functions. The first is to acquire, manage and dispose of land; the second is to collect a levy on development value.
This brings me immediately to one of the main points on which the Bill has been attacked. It has been argued that although the objectives are beyond reproach there is no need for a Land Commission to achieve them. The first function, it is said, is unnecessary: other bodies, including national, regional or local planning authorities, already have adequate powers to ensure the availability of land. The second function, it is said, does not require a Land Commission; it can more effectively be handled by Inland Revenue: and, indeed, some would argue that the point is already covered adequately by the capital gains tax.
To take the latter point first, it is, I think, widely accepted that there is something special about development value; that it differs from other gains, and ought to be treated separately. The levy on development value is not just a tax to raise revenue. It is a means of ensuring that the community takes its proper share of the values which it has itself created by community expenditure and public decision. Given this special treatment of development value, collection of the levy will require additional staff, whether it is done by the Inland Revenue or by some other body. It is the view of the Government, however, that it is essential that the body responsible for the levy should also have effective powers of compulsory purchase, and this would not be appropriate for the Board of Inland Revenue.

1073
It cannot be denied that the imposition of a levy on development value may incite some landowners to withhold land which otherwise would be offered for development. There can be many reasons for their doing so. They may, for example, believe that if they hold on for a few years all this will be swept away and they will be able to realise the full amount of the development value for themselves. This is a decision that can be taken quite lightly, because land does not deteriorate. The landowner can continue to enjoy the current use of the land while the development value lies there waiting to be plucked, at whatever time may suit him best. If landowners acted in this way on a widespread scale, the immediate impact would be on the essential programme of private enterprise housing. I stress the private enterprise programme, because, of course, local authorities already have compulsory purchase powers and can, if necessary, ensure that land is available for their needs. The private builder, however, could not do so.
If this possibility is to be avoided there must be a body with effective powers of compulsory purchase ready and able to use them in order to ensure that builders can indeed get enough land to maintain their programmes; and the body must be able to use the powers quickly enough to prevent prices being forced up by a fear of scarcity. This can be assured only by the existence of a body such as the Land Commission, and since the need for such powers derives from the levy, both functions must be vested in the same body. The Land Commission will thus assess and collect betterment levy and, from information gained from these operations and in other ways, will watch the operations of the market in land and be able to use their powers of acquisition and disposal where this is necessary in order to prevent the market from being distorted by artificial scarcities. In this context the existing powers of compulsory purchase held by local authorities can be no substitute for the powers of the Land Commission.
Thus the two objectives in the White Paper are closely related, and the two functions of the Land Commission are interdependent. It is indeed the combination within a single Land Commission of the power to collect levy,
1074
together with wide powers to acquire land, that will make the Land Commission an effective instrument for the purpose of achieving the objectives, which are themselves beyond dispute.
However, the Commission are provided with powers of acquisition which will enable them to play a wider and more positive role than that of ensuring that the supply of land does not dry up because of the introduction of the levy. I shall be dealing with these powers in a moment. Suffice it to say now that the Commission will be able to facilitate development in both the public and the private sector by the judicious use of their powers to buy land. The Commission can, for example, play their part by assisting with the assembly of land in privately undertaken schemes of redevelopment, and also will be equipped to undertake the large-scale purchases, sometimes well in advance, that will undoubtedly be necessary if our expanding population is to be properly housed in the right places and according to modern planning ideas. Here the Commission may be operating in the public sector. But it is not the intention of the Government that the Commission should supplant the various authorities who would have powers to acquire land for development. For example, local authorities will still have their compulsory purchase powers in support of their various statutory functions.
Neither is it intended that the Commission should become a super-planning authority. There are two safeguards against this in the Bill itself. First, although the Commission may buy land compulsorily for the purposes of a public authority, they can do so only with the agreement of that authority or otherwise with the consent of a Minister. Secondly, although the Commission will be a Crown body, it has been made specifically subject to planning control and the Commission's powers of compulsory purchase will depend upon planning decisions.
Having touched on the possible scope of the Land Commission's activities, may I now turn to the Bill itself? I will not deal with it in any great detail—there will be an opportunity for this on other occasions—but will try to bring out some of the main features and to touch on some of the points of principle which

1075
may arise from it. It seems to me that the Bill is rather complicated. But length and complexity are inherent in any legislation affecting land. I am afraid this is the result of our somewhat tortuous land laws. They result from the need to achieve fairness to individuals and between individuals, and consistency of treatment in a wide variety of situations. Some of the situations may seldom occur, but nevertheless they need to be dealt with if there is to be certainty. As the Minister has already explained in another place, he has preferred, at the cost of some length and complexity, to spell matters out in the Bill itself in order to give certainty, rather than to leave them vague or to leave them to be dealt with by regulations. Some regulations are provided for, but even here so far as possible the scope of the regulations is narrowly prescribed.
I agree, of course, that this is a Bill of 102 clauses with 16 Schedules but, as I have said, I am afraid that this is the consequence of the state into which we have allowed our land law to get. This really goes back quite a long way, because if one goes back to the Land Clauses (Consolidation) Act 1845, one finds that that was in 152 sections with 2 Schedules, or, if one takes the latest work in this field of the previous Conservative Government, the Town and Country Planning Act 1962, this was in 226 sections with 15 Schedules.
The Bill is in four Parts. The first Part deals with the constitution of the Land Commission and the financial arrangements; the second Part with the acquisition, management and disposal of land; the third Part with the betterment levy; and the fourth Part deals with general and supplementary provisions. Part I—that is, Clause 1 and Schedule 1—deals with the constitution of the Land Commission. They are to be servants of the Crown, and the Ministers—the Ministers for the purposes of the Act are the Minister of Land and Natural Resources and the Secretary of State for Scotland—will be entitled to give them directions. Schedule 1 sets out the details of their procedure and constitution. They are to consist of not more than nine members to be appointed by the Ministers. They appoint their own staff, except that the secretary must have
1076
the approval of the Ministers. There are the usual provisions for their remuneration, for a quorum, and for matters of that kind.
It occurred to me at once to ask whether the Land Commission would be included in the Schedule of the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill as being a body which would be subject to the Ombudsman. I am told that that is so—they will be. The Commission's activities on the acquisition, management and disposal of land will be financed out of a fund to which advances not exceeding £45 million may be made out of the Consolidated Fund. The ceiling on the advances can, however, be increased to £75 million with the approval of the House of Commons. This£45 million is not the limit upon the amount that the Commission can spend upon acquiring land; it is the limit upon the amount of money that can be put into the Commission's acquisition and management fund from the Consolidated Fund. However, the Land Commission will buy land at market value less the amount of levy payable and will, with certain exceptions, dispose of land at market value. The amount of levy deducted from the price when land is acquired by the Commission will thus show as a profit to the fund and there may well be other profits to the fund from the trading activities of the Commission. The land acquisition and management fund will therefore grow from the trading activities of the Commission and should in time be self-supporting. The £45 million or the £75 million therefore represents the limit upon the assistance that can be given to the Commission from the Consolidated Fund to their working capital.
To the extent that the Commission sell the freehold of land shortly after they have acquired it—and where land is made available for private building it is to be expected that the Commission will normally sell the freehold—a working capital of up to £45 million, even without being supplemented by profits from the activities of the Commission, could support a substantial turnover of land. Clearly, however, substantial acquisitions of land well in advance of requirements which will tie up capital may have to wait until the Commission have built up their resources, and the need to build up resources will also limit the extent to

1077
which the Commission can assist in redevelopment where costs of acquisition can be high and land and property may have to be held for perhaps two or three years.
The administrative expenses of the Commission are to be met from Votes in the same way as those of any other Government Department. It is envisaged that the Commission will have a staff of about 2,000, with a small headquarters in Newcastle and the remainder of the staff spread over eleven regional offices. The total administrative expenses of the Commission are estimated to amount to about £4 million. Valuation work for the Land Commission will be undertaken by the Valuation Office of the Board of Inland Revenue and it is estimated that their costs for work on behalf of the Commission may amount to £3 million a year. All sums received by the Commission, except those obtained from disposals or the management of land in their possession and thus appropriate to the land acquisition and management fund, will be paid directly into the Exchequer. This is primarily the proceeds from the levy. It is estimated that with the rate of levy at 40 per cent. in a full year, if there were no acquisitions by the Commission, the proceeds of the levy would be of the order of £80 million. This will of course be reduced to the extent that the Commission buy land net of levy and the notional amount of levy deducted from the purchase price appears as a profit in the fund. In the early years also t will be reduced by various transitional provisions. Perhaps before leaving Part II should say that provision is made for an annual report to Parliament, and also for annual accounts which will be considered and reported upon by the Comptroller and Auditor-General in the usual way.
Part II of the Bill, together with Schedules 2 and 3, contains the Commission's powers of acquisition, management and disposal of land. The Commission will be able to buy, by agreement, any land which in their opinion is suitable for development. Their powers to buy land compulsorily are however subject to limitations. As I have already said, before a compulsory purchase order can be made there must be a planning decision indicating that development of the land is appropriate. The Bill thus ensures that
1078
compulsory acquisition powers can operate only within a framework of decisions by the planning authorities and that the Commission does not supersede the existing planning system.
The Bill confers on the Commission comprehensive powers of compulsory purchase which will enable them to acquire any land on which there has been a planning decision, but until a date appointed by an order approved by both Houses of Parliament the compulsory powers of the Commission will be limited to the purposes set out in subsection (4) of Clause 6. In the first stage, therefore, the Commission's powers of compulsory acquisition will be limited to four purposes—namely, the acquisition of, first, land which in the opinion of the Commission ought to be acquired by the Commission in order to secure its early development or redevelopment; secondly, land which in the opinion of the Commission ought to be acquired by the Commission, in order to secure its development or redevelopment as a whole; thirdly, land required by a public authority possessing compulsory purchase powers for the purpose of its functions; and, fourthly, land which is to be disposed of to housing associations or through local authorities or directly on concessionary terms for private housing.
These provisions, which are all in Clause 6, define the limits on the Commission's activities. The power to buy d compulsorily in order to secure its ly development is the essential support to the levy. Here the two functions of the Commission are most closely related. It is very difficult to forecast with certainty what effect the levy will have on the market in land. It is to be hoped that, at the moderate level at which the levy will start, it will be sufficiently accepted by landowners as reasonable for it to have little effect on the market. But, as I have already explained, the Commission must clearly be able to cope with any difficulties that may arise in the supply of sufficient land to maintain the essential building programme.
The other purposes for which the Commission can use compulsory purchase powers will enable them to buy land for large-scale comprehensive development, whether it is urban land requiring redevelopment or urban land required for some major development, like a new town

1079
or town expansion, or a substantial area of land which needs to be brought into development on the boundary of an existing town. They can also act on behalf of local authorities or perhaps groups of local authorities or other public authorities—but, as I have already said, normally only with their consent or at their invitation—or can buy in order to provide land for concessionary disposals for private housing, on which I shall have more to say later.
I should like to deal specially with certain procedural questions which have attracted some attention in another place. First, under Clause 7 the Commission will follow a procedure which is half-way between that appropriate to a Minister and that used by a local authority, but the procedure follows closely and applies the provisions of the First Schedule to the Acquisition of Land Act 1946, which governs virtually all compulsory purchase powers by other bodies. In form the Commission's compulsory purchase orders will be like those made by Ministers who have compulsory purchase powers for their own functions. The Commission will make a draft order. If there are no objections to it, the order will then be made and become operative. In this the procedure follows the adaptations in Part II of the First Schedule to the 1946 Act which applies to Ministers. If, however, there are objections, the Commission are treated in much the same way as any other subordinate body like a local authority and an order requires ministerial approval. When a local authority makes a compulsory purchase order it requires confirmation by a Minister before it becomes operative, whether or not there are objections. In the Commission's case, the reference to a Minister is necessary, as I said, only if there are objections, but in that event the Minister must give his authorisation before the Commission may make the order. The procedure under which the Minister may make an authorisation is virtually identical with the procedure under which a Minister confirms a compulsory purchase order made by a local authority. The Minister must give the objector an opportunity to be heard generally at an inquiry, and must then consider the objection and the report of the person who held the inquiry before
1080
deciding whether or not to give the authorisation. The rights of the individual are therefore as fully protected under this procedure for the Land Commission as they are in any other compulsory purchase.
Clause 8 and Schedule 2 provide, however, that in certain circumstances this procedure can be modified. It is intended only to enable the Commission, in exceptional circumstances, to act quickly—if, for example, the supply of land for development failed on such a scale as seriously to threaten private development. It is not envisaged that this is a procedure which would be applied to an individual case. In the circumstances in which it would be applied there would be a need for the Commission to make a number of compulsory purchase orders, and this could impose such a burden on the normal machinery for holding inquiries that the delays could be intolerable. This clause and Schedule, therefore, provide for a shortened procedure in which the requirements relating to advertisement and the services of notices are curtailed—but by no means removed—and objections can be considered without the obligation upon the Minister to grant a hearing. A similar power was provided in the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946, and during the five years in which that power was available it was used fairly widely without causing any significant criticism. It necessarily involves some curtailment of the landowner's opportunities to elaborate on his objection but it does not absolve the Minister in any way from the obligation to consider the objection. There has been much misrepresentation about this matter in another place, and I therefore repeat that the Minister, under this procedure, is obliged to consider the objection and there is no question of any land being taken from anyone compulsorily without his having full opportunity to object. He can state his objections at length in writing.
I repeat that this is very much a reserve power. It comes into effect only with a ministerial order which would be limited in time; it would be confined to those parts of the country where Ministers were satisfied that it was needed, and would also be confined by Ministers to the classes of compulsory purchase order for

1081
which it was essential. The power would not be invoked unless Ministers were satisfied that the Commission was confronted with a very serious situation. The Government hope, and indeed expect, that landowners will act reasonably and will not withhold from the market land which is clearly needed for development. But the Government would be failing in their duty if they did not take powers to ensure that in the event of an organised withholding of land the essential development of the country would be able to continue. The Government think that if this situation arose it would be likely to do so in the early years of the Commission. The powers under Clause 8 and Schedule 2 will therefore be available only within the first five years after the first appointed day, unless that period is extended by both Houses of Parliament.
I would also draw specific attention to the vesting procedure in Clauses 9 and 10 and Schedule 3. This matter also has been the subject of some misrepresentation. The procedure is based upon the expedited completion procedure which has been available for certain compulsory purchases by local authorities since 1944; that is, for 22 years. Under the normal compulsory purchase order procedure, a local authority can enter on, and take possession of, land within two or three weeks after the confirmation of a compulsory purchase order, without waiting for compensation to he settled or for title to be investigated. The local authority has de facto possession: the owner is dispossessed and the local authority can build its houses or schools and use them. However, until compensation is settled and the land is formally conveyed, the local authority does not have a good title and would not therefore be able to dispose of it to a private purchaser. The expedited completion procedure first made available in 1944 was designed to enable a local authority that was buying land for redevelopment, and therefore primarily for re-disposal, to get a good title to the land more quickly. The Commission will always be in this situation. Their function is to buy land for the purpose of re-disposing of it, and, except where they are deliberately buying land well in advance, they will want to dispose of land as soon as possible after buying it.
But there is another, more important, advantage in the vesting procedure. The vesting declaration gives the Commission
1082
an unchallengable title, and any subsequent purchaser from the Commission does not therefore have to investigate the Commission's title. This saves the time of scarce lawyers acting both for the purchaser and for the Commission on disposals by the Commission. It also removes the need for the Commission to employ lawyers to investigate the title of the vendor in order to ensure that the Commission have acquired a good title. The vendor's title is of significance only in determining his entitlement to compensation. Investigation of title can lead to considerable delays, not least the receipt by the vendor of his compensation. The Ministry of Transport, who have considerable experience of paying compensation before investigation of title, have found however, that, in practice, vendors of land very seldom claim title to more than they own or fail to disclose encumbrances. It is therefore proposed, in the interests of efficiency and saving of scarce staff, that the Commission shall not normally investigate title before paying compensation. The vendor will be invited to arrange for his solicitor to set out a declaration of his title—and the vendor's solicitor's fees for this will be paid by the Commission—and compensation will be paid on the strength of this. The Commission will, however, have a reserve power of recovery in the unlikely event of too much compensation being paid—because, for example, of a failure by the vendor to disclose an encumbrance or because the vendor claimed title to land which was not in fact his.
This procedure does not in any way deprive the owner of his rights. He cannot be dispossessed any more quickly than under the normal procedure whereby an acquiring authority can enter on land quickly. It does not in any way affect the right of the owner initially to object to compulsory purchase. It is concerned only with the procedure after a compulsory purchase order has been made, but it has the great advantage that, because the lengthy operation of investigation of title by the solicitor to the Commission is dispensed with, it will in most cases be possible for compensation to be paid much more quickly, and will very substantially reduce the administrative burden on the Commission and the demands which the Commission would have to make upon the scarce supply

1083
of solicitors. As your Lordships may know, the Law Society estimate that they are 5,000 solicitors short, which is 25 per cent., and there are 30 jobs waiting to choose from for every newly qualified solicitor.
I come now to the Commission's management and disposal functions, in Clauses 12 to 21. The Commission will have all the powers necessary to enable them to manage land efficiently while it is in their possession, including power to carry out works, such as the lay-out of estate roads or the provision of services. They will have a reserve power, but only with Ministerial consent, for the provision of houses, but I will deal with this when I come later to crown holds. Subject to this, it is not envisaged that the Commission will normally undertake substantial development. They will normally dispose of land for development by others. But, in so far as the Commission do undertake any development, although they are a Crown body, they will be subject to building by-laws or regulations and to planning control. In disposing of land the Commission have the widest discretion. They can, for instance, dispose either of leasehold or freehold interests. In disposing of land to public authorities, the Commission will normally dispose of the freehold; they will probably do so also if they are disposing of land to a builder for private enterprise housing. They will be expected, when disposing of land, to obtain the best price they can, unless they are disposing of a concessionary crownhold interest, or otherwise are authorised by a direction of the Ministers to do so.
I turn now to the provisions in Clauses 17 to 21 which deal with crownhold. A principal objective of the Government's land policy, as set out in the White Paper, is the return to the community of a substantial part of the development value which the community itself has largely created. The main instrument for this will of course be the levy. But when the Commission are disposing of land it would be inconsistent with this objective if the Commission were not able to reserve the right to any future development value which may accrue to that land. The Commission will therefore, when disposing of land, whether on a freehold or a leasehold basis, have the
1084
power to impose such restrictions upon the future use of the land as will enable them to retain the element of value attaching to the prospect of development other than that for which they are disposing of the land. Thus, for example, the Commission might sell freehold a plot of land for the erection of houses, but subject to a restriction against development for anything other than houses. If, at some time in the future, the question arose of the houses being demolished and replaced by shops which would be a more valuable use and would therefore release development value, the Commission, by enforcing their covenants, could ensure that the whole of the additional value atributable to the shopping use returned to the community. The special points about crownhold covenant are that they will be enforceable by the Commission even though the Commission may hold no land which can show benefit from that covenant but that, unlike covenants in a lease which are enforceable by a right of forfeiture, they ensure that whenever they are enforced the crownholder retains the full value of the land for the purpose for which he originally bought it from the Commission. In other words, a person buying a house subject to a crownhold covenant cannot be deprived of the value of that house so long as it exists.
The second purpose of crownhold is to help prospective owner-occupiers of houses. Clause 18 enables the Commission to dispose of land for housing at a concessionary price—a price below the market value. This is one of the ways in which the Government propose to help a person who wishes to provide his own house or to help agencies which set out to provide houses for owner-occupation. The difficulty about a concession of this kind is to ensure that the benefit goes to the person for whom it is intended. If land is just sold at a price below market value without control, the concession can be realised—and indeed would be realised very quickly—either by going merely to swell the builder's profit or by being taken on the first resale. Clause 18 therefore provides that when land is disposed of for housing at a concessionary price it will be done so subject to crownhold covenants which will include a right of pre-emption to the Commission, thus ensuring that the Commission can

1085
recover the concession, but only the concession, that they have made. The Commission will be able to dispose of land on concessionary crownhold terms direct to the person who is to occupy the house, and they can either do so by disposing of the plot or they can, with the consent of the Minister, build the house and dispose of that, or the Commission can dispose of land to a body which can undertake to police the further disposal to individual owners. In practice it is expected that the Commission will normally dispose of land on concessionary terms to housing associations or societies or co-ownership groups whose rules will ensure that the benefit of the concession in the price of land, is indeed passed on to the occupants of the houses. It is not envisaged, however, that the concession would be made to bodies who are otherwise in receipt of a subsidy.
I have dealt at some length with Parts I and II of the Bill. I do not propose to deal in any detail with Part III. The 59 clauses in Part III, together with 10 of the Bill's 17 Schedules, are concerned with the levy on development value. The clauses and the Schedules are unavoidably complex, but the basic ideas are really quite simple. There are three basic principles attaching to the levy: first, it will be charged only on development value and not on any increases in the value of the land for its current use; secondly, development value on which levy has been paid will not be chargeable again, and, thirdly, levy will be payable by the person who realises the development value. Your Lordships may remember that in the Act for which my noble friend Lord Silkin was largely responsible the development charge always fell on the person who developed the land. Development value will normally be realised by the person who sells the interest in the land, and the levy will he assessed on the actual price paid. A disposition of land by inheritance or gift will not be charged to levy; but, of course, if it were followed by the development of the land, the value then realised would be charged.
Once the levy comes into operation it is intended to provide by next year's Finance Bill that capital gains for the purposes of the long-term capital gains tax, or for the purposes of corporation tax, will be limited to gains in the current
1086
use value of land and will cease to bite on development value. The levy will thus become the Government's main instrument for dealing with development value, which will not be subjected to both levy and capital gains tax. There are certain transitional circumstances in which levy might apply to a value which was otherwise subject to capital gains tax, and this matter is unravelled by Schedule 8 to the Bill which provides for any capital gains tax paid in these circumstances to be deducted from the liability to levy.
The levy is a flexible instrument which can be varied according to the supply of land and the Commission's ability to ensure sufficient land for development. It has been announced in the White Paper, and the Minister has given a number of assurances, that the levy will be set initially at 40 per cent., but it will be increased progressively to 45 per cent. and then to 50 per cent. at reasonably short intervals. Such rates of levy still leave very substantial incentives for development, and considerable care has been taken in working out the provisions to minimise the possibility of unfairness on any individuals, and also to minimise the possibility of interference with the operations of the market and the progress of development. Thus, for example, levy applies after the sale of land and is taken out of the proceeds. The conveyance of land does not have to be held up until levy is assessed—indeed, levy cannot be assessed until after the conveyance has taken place.
So far as development is concerned, the only obligation before the start of development is to notify the Commission, and development can then proceed while the liability for levy, if any, is determined. As I have already said, in many cases no levy will arise at development because it will already have been taken on a previous disposition. Indeed, there is a specific provision that where land has changed hands at arm's length in the full knowledge of planning permission for the project of development that is to be carried out, if the Commission are satisfied with the terms of the disposition, there will be no need for any notification or assessment at the start of development, provided that it takes place within two years of the disposition.
I have spent some time on the principles of Part III of this Bill to which your Lordships are now being asked to

1087
give a Second Reading. If I have not spent more time on the details of Part III it is partly because on Second Reading the House is concerned more with principles than with matters of detail, and partly because if Part III had been, as it might have been, put into a Supply Bill, it would not be the practice of your Lordships' House to amend it.
Part IV of the Bill, as I have said, contains general and supplementary provisions. In particular, it contains in Clause 99 the definitions and interpretations. The most important of these, of course, is the definition of "material development". This is significant for two purposes; first, the powers of compulsory purchase of the Land Commission relate only to land which is suitable for material development; secondly, development value to which levy applies is the value arising from the prospect of material development, and no levy will apply to increases in current use value which is the value which land has if any planning permissions for any material development are disregarded.
"Material development" is defined negatively; in other words, it is defined by development which is not material. Very briefly, development which is not material is any development covered by Schedule 3 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 (subject to one minor qualification); secondly, any development which is permitted under the General Development Order, and, thirdly, any development specified in regulations made under this clause. The effect of these definitions is that it is only substantial development that is caught; in other words, the erection of new houses, shops, offices or factories or substantial changes of use: for example, from a house to an office. The owner of a house can extend it very considerably—indeed by as much as 1,000 square feet, which is roughly the equivalent of a typical council house—without this constituting material development. The definition of "material development" has deliberately been made wide in order to prevent the Commission from being cluttered up with the need to assess levy in many minor cases.
The Bill also provides that it is only when the development value realised is greater than 10 per cent. of the current
1088
use value that any liability for levy can arise. This is also a provision to prevent unnecessary assessments of levy and to ease the impact of levy on redevelopment. Here I quote two sentences. The first is:
"Land which is essential to the free and healthy development of towns is being kept out of the market in order to enhance its value."
Then:
"The growth of the value of urban sites is due to no expenditure of capital or thought on the part of the ground owner, but entirely owing to the energy and enterprise of the community."
That quotation is from cols. 532 and 536 of the House of Commons OFFICIAL REPORT of April 29, 1909, from Mr. Lloyd George.
As your Lordships know, my noble friend Lord Silkin's Town and Country Planning Act 1947 was dismantled by the Conservative Government in 1953. Since then building plots in London have risen in price from about £400 to £2,000. Even in the two years from 1963 to 1965 the price of building plots in the Swindon-Oxford-Newbury area has often more than doubled. In the Cambridge area since the dismantling of the 1947 Act, and particularly between 1958 and 1964, the cost of building land has risen from between £500 and £1,000 an acre to between £5,000 and £20,000 an acre. A former Conservative Member of another place has frankly recountered how he bought 173 acres for £36,000 and then sold three of those 173 acres for £18,000. As your Lordships may remember, in the Lavender Hill case land bought for £7,500 was resold two years later to the Enfield Council, who simply had to have it to house their people, for £240,000. It is now being claimed that, as the Enfield Council ultimately entered on a rather bigger scheme of development with flats, the sellers are entitled to at least another £150,000.
My Lords, for too long the property speculators have bled white those of our people who have wanted a home to live in, at a price or at a rent they could afford. I commend this Bill to the House as a means by which this racket will be ended—and about time, too! I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

VISIT OF MR. KOSYGIN
3.50 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, this might be a convenient moment for me on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, who unfortunately is unwell, to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. His words are:
"As the House knows from the Communiqué at the end of my visit to Moscow in February, I invited the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union, Mr. A. N. Kosygin, to visit this country as the guest of Her Majesty's Government. Mr. Kosygin expressed his thanks for this invitation, which he accepted; and I am now glad to be able to inform the House that it has now been agreed that Mr. Kosygin will arrive in Britain for an official visit on the 6th of February, 1967."
My Lords, that concludes the Prime Minister's Statement.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am sure it would be the wish of everybody in the House to send a message to the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, that we hope he is not seriously ill but will be back very shortly in his accustomed place.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD CARRINGTON: Equally everybody in the House will welcome the news which the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has just given to the House. These visits are always a good thing, particularly those by Communist leaders who come to London and see how we live. I am sure that all noble Lords will hope that the visit will be both fruitful and successful.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches, I should like to associate myself with the two messages which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has suggested should be conveyed.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, my task is an easy one. I will, of course, convey the messages which have been given by the two noble Lords, and I thank them both for what they have said.

LAND COMMISSION BILL
3.54 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I feel sure that all your Lordships who have been addressing your minds to the better comprehension of the Land Commission Bill over the last few days will wish to join with me in thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his lengthy and painstaking exposition of this Bill. I would differentiate only about the last few sentences of his speech, which appeared to me to import a good deal of political prejudice into what is, in any case, an extremely difficult subject, even if approached wholly impartially. I am quite sure that as we continue our discussions on this Bill we shall find it helpful to return and examine the noble and learned Lord's speech.
I hope he will not think it disrespectful of me, because I assure him it is intended as a compliment, to say that he made the best of a bad Bill. I could not help contrasting in my mind the presentation of this Bill by the Government with the protestations which were made by the Government not so many months ago about the necessity for simplifying the law of the land and the importance of setting up a Law Commission to do so. Having worked as hard as I can on this Bill, I have modestly, but regretfully, come to the conclusion that I have not yet reached the degree of intellectual acumen that is required for membership of your Lordships' House. The noble and learned Lord was good enough and wise enough to say that it seemed to him that the Bill was rather complicated. If, indeed, in the opinion of the Government this is the way to make the law intelligible to the general public, I must be grossly underrating the ability of the public to understand the legislation which this Government are bringing forward.
May I, for example, invite your Lordships' attention to one or two of the passages of this Bill? I will trouble your Lordships with only a single sentence, which I should like to read:
"If the operative provision in question is paragraph 8, then for the purpose of calculating the appropriate deduction paragraph 19 or, as the case may be, paragraph 21 of this Schedule

1091
shall apply as if the taxable disposal which occurred had been the first separate disposal and not the relevant taxable disposal, and accordingly as if—

(a) in paragraph 19 of this Schedule (where that paragraph is applicable) any reference to the chargeable gain which accrued on the taxable disposal in question were a reference to so much of the chargeable gain which accrued on the relevant taxable disposal as is properly attributable to the first separate disposal, and

(b) in paragraph 21 of this Schedule (where that paragraph is applicable) any reference to the chargeable gain which would have been taken to accrue on the taxable disposal in question if the assumed tax condition had been fulfilled in relation to it were a reference to so much of the chargeable gain which in those circumstances would have been taken to accrue on the relevant taxable disposal as is properly attributable to the first separate disposal."

That is sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 23 of the eighth Schedule to the Bill. When your Lordships have taken that fence, you will find paragraph 24 of Schedule 8 an even stiffer one. Seriously, I am bound to ask the Government, what are the reasons for the extreme complexity which is the very essence of this Bill? The noble and learned Lord sought to excuse it by referring to the length of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962, which, he said, was a Conservative Act; but, unless my memory plays me false, that in fact was a Consolidation Act which caught up together the legislation of many previous Governments of different political Parties, including what remained of the 1947 Act which was piloted by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. Therefore I think the comparison was hardly a fair one.
The White Paper states the purposes of this Bill. The Government want to do two things. First, they want to tax profits made from the increased value accruing by the grant of planning permission. The Lord Chancellor said that there was something special about development value, and that value attached to land by the right to develop it has been partially created by the community. That word "partially" covers a wide range. I grant that in certain cases it may be largely created by the community. In others, it has not been created by the community at all to any perceptible extent. It is fallacious to suggest that one equitably deals with this very difficult matter of value created by
1092
the community by imposing a standard charge, whether it is 40 per cent. or 45 per cent. or 50 per cent., on every case of value added by a planning permission. Personally, I think there is a lot to be said for continuing to make efforts to tax the increment of value created by a planning permission. Indeed, one might have had a workable tax or levy a good many years ago had it not been for that disastrous decision by the Labour Government of 1947 to impose development charge at 100 per cent. It was not the fact of the charge, but the fixing of the development charge at 100 per cent., which halted development just at the time when the national interest called for development to be vigorously encouraged. The result was that within six or seven years the charge had to be abolished.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question? I am not challenging that it was a bad decision, but it was done by regulation. Why did not the noble Lord's Government make a fresh regulation reducing the 100 per cent.?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: It is difficult enough to discuss the Land Commission Bill 1966. I really think that I should not be assisting your Lordships if I were to give you my views on the Town and Country Planning Act 1953.
LORD SILKIN: I thought you were doing so.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I shall not, at any rate, do so on this occasion. I cannot help wondering whether Part III of this present Bill will last as long as the 100 per cent. development charge in the 1947 Act. I cannot help thinking that likewise a time will come, and will come fairly soon, when it is seen to be unworkable.
Of course, in contrast with those days twenty years ago and with the days of the Uthwatt Report, we have now an overall capital gains tax, and I am bound to say I did not find the explanation of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wholly convincing as to the reasons why the taxing purposes of this Bill could not have been sufficiently achieved by suitable application or modification of the provisions of the capital gains tax. There is no inherent virtue in devising an extra new tax. It

1093
does not lead people to say how clever or how just you are. Indeed, I should have thought that the present Government would have learned that by now by experience, from the public reception of some of the additional taxes which they have invented.
I hope—and I think that in expressing this hope I am speaking not just for noble Lords whose approach to this Bill may be a Party political one, but for all noble Lords and a great many interested people outside in the country—that the Government will, in the course of our proceedings, explain much more carefully why they preferred not to adapt an existing tax and why they chose so gravely to complicate the law by inventing a new tax, which at one swoop adds 134 complicated pages to the law—134 out of the 189 pages of which this nearly unintelligible Bill consists.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that if Part III had been presented as a separate Bill it would have been a Supply Bill, and it is not customary for your Lordships' House to amend Supply Bills. But, of course, the fact is that it has not been presented as a separate Bill, and I am sure that the noble and learned Lord is as well aware as I am that there are precedents for your Lordships' House seeking to amend a Part of a Bill which, though concerned with finance, nevertheless has not been presented as an independent Supply Bill.
The second main purpose of this Bill is to ensure that land is available at the right time and in the right quantity, and to enable land to be bought for public purposes in advance of requirements. I think all of your Lordships would in principle endorse that object, too. As to buying in advance of requirements, not only New Towns but urban redevelopment may call for that. But when the authorities concerned already have compulsory purchase powers, it is necessary for your Lordships' House to ask why they could not be allowed to carry on and use those powers. This Bill, in fact, authorises the Land Commission to duplicate all the existing compulsory purchase powers of authorities. From time to time Parliament has reviewed those powers and in carefully defined directions has extended them, but one cannot help asking precisely what further compulsory acquisition purposes are to be pursued
1094
under this Bill; whether there is any real statutory limitation on them, or whether we are simply to trust that the Land Commission will use their enormous powers wisely.
Here may I extend my own good wishes, and I hope the good wishes of the whole House, to the newly appointed Chairman-designate of the Land Commission, who is to take up these massive duties if the Bill reaches the Statute Book. I am sure that the Government were wise to choose somebody who has his great experience in these difficult property fields.
I have read the Reports of the debates on this Bill in another place, as, quite clearly, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has, and I noticed how often Ministers accused the Opposition there of being suspicious. But if adequate powers already seem to be present in the law, and a new body is appointed to exercise them, is it not natural to inquire with some care precisely what else this new body is going to do? If one's wife normally has £15 a week for housekeeping, and one week says that she must have £50, is it unusually suspicious of her husband to inquire exactly why she wants an extra £35? This is what your Lordships have to try to find out.
Are the Land Commission to be free to buy compulsorily any developable or redevelopable land they like, without stating any purpose? I think they are, and that when they have bought it, even if they have stated the purpose, they can then use that land for a completely different purpose from the one on which they based their decision compulsorily to acquire. The noble and learned Lord explained that the £45 million was merely working capital, and that in fact they would have a kind of revolving fund replenished by their trading activities and disposals of land. That leads me to wonder whether there may be any effective limit on the Commission's rapacity, if I may use that word in respect of a body on which Parliament seems to be imposing such very slight restraints.
I cannot myself see what is to prevent the Land Commission from acquiring as quickly as they possibly can all land which is capable of development, wherever it may be. When the Commission have deprived the present and legitimate

1095
owners of their land or their homes, without giving any reason, they can sell again at any price they like, if they sell by way of concessionary crownhold, to anybody they like, and the Commission themselves will decide independently and, so far as this Bill is concerned, entirely arbitrarily who shall receive their favours.
I noted that the noble and learned Lord explained that, at any rate in the first instance, the Land Commission would sell by way of concessionary crownhold only to housing societies and the like, but there is nothing at all in the Bill to limit their activities to that. This seems to me in rather sharp contrast with what the noble and learned Lord said as regards Part III of the Bill, when he told your Lordships that the Minister has preferred to spell matters out rather than to deal with them by regulations. With regard to concessionary crownhold, there are no regulations and no spelling out. It is left completely to the discretion of the Commission.
This also appears to be a Bill to legitimise Crichel Down action. I can remember in my political experience few events which enraged the country generally so much as the revelations on Crichel Down. After that, the Conservavtive Government laid down elaborate principles to ensure that, except in certain fairly rare types of cases, if land which had been acquired compulsorily or under threat of compulsion was no longer required for a public purpose, it should be offered back to the original owner. I can find nothing in this Bill that would so confine the Land Commission, or would require them to sell back to the original owner, from whom they had acquired land compulsorily, land which in their opinion was no longer required for the original or any other purpose. I trust that, while this Bill is going through the Committee stage, your Lordships will inquire very searchingly into that.
Broadly, it seems a pity that a Government plan to achieve certain purposes which in themselves are widely acceptable among all Parties and all sections of opinion should, in the drafting of this Bill, be extended to almost unlimited powers which, frankly, will be abhorrent to the citizen as soon as he discovers what they are. It is going to be extremely
1096
important to your Lordships that we should distinguish carefully between what happens after the first appointed day and what happens after the second appointed day. Most of the purposes for which the Land Commission can acquire land before the second appointed day seem quite reasonable, but the purposes open to them after the second appointed day are wholly unacceptable. After the second appointed day, anyone who tries to improve his property will lay himself open to having it taken from him. I should be grateful for the Government's comments later on that statement of mine. If it is not correct, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will correct or limit it; but certainly, as I read the Bill, anyone who tries to improve his property after the second appointed day will lay himself open to having it taken from him.
The likely result of that, in the first instance, is a strong discouragement to develop—exactly what happened after 1948. Even the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, went so far as to say that it was very difficult to forecast what effect the levy will have on the market in land. I wish the Government had made more effort seriously to study and forecast that before bringing in this Bill. But if the owner is discouraged from going forward with his own development plans—if, indeed, he does nothing—and the Land Commission then think that his property is capable of improvement, he may find it taken from him just the same. The theory appears to be that you discourage the existing owner from improving his property on the supposition that someone who has never owned it before will, if he can get hold of it, develop it better. This is the odd logic of Socialism, and I simply cannot understand it.
On a particular point, I wonder whether the Government would be good enough to define more closely the relationship between the Land Commission and the planning authority. I appreciate that the Land Commission themselves cannot give a planning permission; and the noble and learned Lord assured us, although it is not very easy to read this in the Bill, that the Land Commission cannot themselves develop without being covered by planning permission. If, in the Land Commission's opinion, land is suitable for material development in accordance with Clause 6 but no planning permission exists, and if there is no allocation in

1097
the development plan for a more fruitful use, will the Land Commission themselves apply to the planning authority for permission to develop, or will they have to hold off, or what?
I would now invite your Lordships' attention to Clause 8. It has hitherto been accepted that no one should be dispossessed of his home or his property without the right to object and to state his objections at a public inquiry or at a private hearing. That has been the case with very few exceptions throughout our history, and those exceptions have been in very special times. That has been universally accepted. Socialism now wishes to destroy this, as I thought, elementary right of the citizen. When Clause 8 is brought into play, the noble and learned Lord assured us, the owner's objections will be considered, but he will have no right to present them himself or through his counsel. He will have no right to claim a public inquiry. He will have no right to claim a private hearing, even, by someone appointed by the Minister. I cannot help wondering what would have happened if, when I was Home Secretary, I had sought to enact that, because there were serious arrears in the criminal courts and it was very important to speed up the discharge of business, accused persons should no longer be allowed to defend themselves or have themselves defended in open court. This seems to me to be what is happening here; and if one makes that comparison—and I think it is a fair comparison—one sees the enormity of this proposal.
The noble and learned Lord assured us that this power would not be used in the individual case. But it seems to me almost more breathtaking that this power might be used for a whole generality of cases, perhaps for a substantial area of the country, perhaps for the whole country, because the Land Commission were getting behind in their acquisition of land for development. It surely will be a serious charge against the efficiency of the Land Commission if their own planning and operation is so faulty that they allow a situation to arise in which such a shortage of available land develops. But if they do, clearly the fault will lie with the Land Commission themselves; and a very strong case will need to be made before
1098
that elementary right of the owner can be removed from him.
Under Clause 8, as I read it, the Minister may make an order that all compulsory purchase orders shall henceforth be brought within this special procedure—and I would ask your Lordships to note that that order does not even require the Affirmative procedure in Parliament. It goes through unless it is successfully challenged in either House. It was stated in another place that under Clause 8 the Land Commission could take away anybody's home within 28 days without any obligation to offer the occupant alternative accommodation. If this is in fact a misreading of the Bill, if the Government say this is impossible, may I ask them to explain in detail what there is in the Bill to make it impossible and what kind of assurances they are prepared to give that, under this Bill, the individual citizen will not be liable to be treated as disgracefully as it appears to be threatened he will be?
I come now to Clause 18, which deals with concessionary crownhold dispositions. Like the noble and learned Lord, I am not attempting to deal with every clause. I know that the proceedings on this Bill will be long, and that many noble Lords wish to speak to-day; and I expect that by the end of the debate we shall have covered most of the controversial provisions of the Bill—although, I fancy, not all of the unintelligible ones. The concept of concessionary crownhold in Clause 18 appears to be the only provision in the whole Bill which may in certain cases lower the cost of building land. In that case, it will do it by the very crude method of direct subsidy. This is not at all what the public have been led to expect. A year or two ago the Party opposite were claiming that they had a policy to reduce land prices. Indeed, it is said in the White Paper that one of the objects of this Bill is
"to secure…that the burden of the cost of land for essential purposes is reduced."
It is extremely hard to see any provision in the Bill that will secure that, except this one enactment in Clause 18 that will allow subsidy.
Frankly, I think that past talk about having a policy that will reduce land prices has proved to be nonsense. By

1099
taxing development, the Bill will, in general, increase prices, and the public are going to discover that; they can no longer be hoodwinked after the Bill comes into operation. As to Clause 18, I recognise that at first this power of subsidy is to be used only for building societies, co-partnership schemes and so on; but there is nothing in the Bill to limit it to them. Suppose a builder is negotiating to buy certain land for building houses. As I read Clause 18, there is nothing to stop the Land Commission from stepping in at that point, acquiring the land compulsorily and then selling it to a rival builder at a cut price. That cannot be right. I hope that the Government will not merely explain what Clause 18 is intended to do, but limit the powers, either in the Bill or by regulation, to ensure that everybody clearly understands that the Land Commission are not be allowed to act inequitably in such ways.
I should like to ask the Government a few more questions before sitting down. Why does the Bill provide that an owner may have to wait for six years before he can find out whether he has to pay a levy or how much levy he has to pay? Is it because the Government foresee the Land Commission being absolutely overwhelmed and falling into gross arrears, just struggling to be able to give decisions six years after the event in question has taken place? If we are to contemplate that kind of contingency, something is fundamentally wrong with the Land Commission as a whole and the concept behind it. Unless the Government are prepared drastically to reduce that permissible period of six years, this is the only conclusion your Lordships will be able to arrive at: that the Government are providing for the likelihood of this Land Commission falling far, far behind in their work. They are going to have an enormous amount to do. There was a clash in another place when a member of the Opposition suggested that the Land Commission would have to deal with over two million cases per annum. The Minister said in reply that that was a gross exaggeration and that in his opinion he calculated that it would not be more than one million.
If, indeed, it is going to be anything like one million, would it not be sensible
1100
for the Government from the outset to exempt quite small transactions from the levy? That has been accepted for years in the case of death duties. I can remember when all estates over £300 in total value were liable for duty. The Treasury have seen over the years the wisdom of modifying that and now estates up to £3,000 or £4,000 are exempt from death duty. Rather than allow the Land Commission to struggle into a position where it takes six years to say what levy is chargeable, it will be better to lighten their task from the outset by drastically relieving them from having to deal with all these small cases—cases which are never liable to give rise to public scandal. I do not really believe that the public would mind as much as apparently the Government imagine they would if, for example, an owner-occupier were allowed to sell his house without paying development levy.
Then what about those cases where development value accrues in cash to the owner only over a long period? As I read this Bill, the Land Commission can insist on payment of the levy in advance. Is the man to borrow from his bank in order to pay tax on money he has not yet received? Not a very long time ago the banks were told by the Government not to advance money to anybody for the payment of the selective employment tax. Is this a different category? In any case, it is surely inconsistent with present Government policy if people in this position are to be told specifically by the Government that they should borrow from the bank to pay the tax on money they have not yet received.
I pass to the position of charities. Hitherto, charities have been generally exempt from taxes. I think the House would be grateful if the Government would explain precisely how far Clause 57 exempts charities and how far it does not. Why should there be any limitation at all on the exemption granted to charities in this matter?
Speaking generally, it appears to me that the whole concept of this development levy is in practice going to give rise to a tremendous amount of uncertainty and that, as always, uncertainty will prove to be one of the grave disadvantages weighing against every attempt to collect any sort of betterment levy. The idea of a betterment levy is acceptable; but, to

1101
my mind, its practical application is so difficult and so uncertain that I doubt whether one will not create more injustice than justice by attempting to collect it. The noble and learned Lord said that there was a 25 per cent. shortage of solicitors, and we already know there is a shortage of valuers. He was good enough to explain that certain provisions in this Bill were designed to simplify the procedure in order to spare the professional people extra work. But the Bill as a whole is not going to spare them; the Bill as a whole is going to pile enormous new burdens on both solicitors and valuers. And one of the particular respects in which it will do that, quite apart from the sheer difficulty of the wording of the Bill, is the degree of untainty it is going to create.
The Land Commission will, as the noble and learned Lord admitted, require a very large staff. At this time when the Government say that we need a shakeout of men who are urgently required for productive and export industries, an extra 2,000 people—who, I should say, will need to be reasonably skilled people—will have to be put to these new tasks falling on the Land Commission, and something like £7 million a year in cost of staff and administration has to be faced. My Lords, I regard this as the worst piece of legislation to come before Parliament for fifteen years at least. Because it was produced in the last Parliament and was included in the programme on which the Party opposite won the last Election, I shall certainly not advise my noble friends to vote against it; but we will try constructively in Committee to make it a better Bill. If we cannot succeed in that, and if our Amendments are not accepted in another place, then I forecast that much of this measure, well-intended as part of it is, will suffer the same fate as the 1947 100 per cent. development charge did. It will get hated for itself, and public opinion will turn so strongly against it that hardly anyone, even in the Party opposite, will regret its demise when it is repealed by a Government with greater common sense and understanding.
4.30 p.m.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack for expounding the objects of this Bill. If anyone could
1102
persuade the House that this was a Bill worthy of support, it would be the present Lord Chancellor; but in spite of that, I am not persuaded. I will not compete with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, in quoting from the Bill though I could quite well do so.
From time to time I take a Government Bill home to study over the week-end, and I took the Land Commission Bill home this week-end. I must say that it was the most difficult homework that I have had to tackle for a long time. The 189 pages, with 102 clauses and 17 Schedules, have varying degrees of complexity, but the matter does not end there. Unfortunately, one of the characteristics of modern legislation is that the longer the Bill, the more provisions there seem to be for regulations and for delegated legislation. It should be the other way round: if it is a long Bill, it should contain everything. Unfortunately, it does not work out that way, and here we have a number of provisions for regulations; and in addition, the discretionary powers to which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has already referred. The Bill has proved a headache for Members of Parliament in both Houses, but it will be even more of a headache for laymen and for professional people who will have to advise them and interpret the Bill. It may well be that professional advisers will be paid for this, but that does not alter the fact that it is unproductive work and will involve, also, a great deal of time and effort.
Furthermore, there will be the use of manpower in staffing the Commission. I do not know how many valuers will have to be employed, but at the present time there is a very serious shortage of valuers. Yet here they are being drawn away from other important work in order to take on duties for this Commission that is being set up. As we know, the rating revaluation is being postponed owing to the shortage of valuers. If, as an outcome of the Bill, there were to be a simplification of town planning procedures, and if, in fact, the right land would be made available at the right time; and if there were a recovery for the community of land values without discouraging development, it might be that the price in accepting this Bill would not be too high. But I do not see any real prospects of these objectives being achieved.

1103
Here, my Lords, I must introduce a personal note, because when the White Paper was first published (I think in September, 1965) I expressed the view that the Government's proposals might, by drastic amendment, be converted into something approaching a Liberal measure, and that possibly the proper course, when the Bill was brought before another place, might be to allow a Second Reading with a view to amending it. I think I am on record as having said that. But when the Bill was published I became convinced that it was quite impossible to convert it into anything like a reasonable measure which would be consistent with the policy which the Liberals have been advocating. In that sense I agree that it is unamendable.
The Liberal aim is to reform our town planning procedures, and the procedure for land acquisition; to simplify it in certain ways, and at the same time to ensure that the collection of part of the values created by the community was done in such a way that it would not deter development. I do not see how that can be achieved under this Bill. Furthermore, the Bill has a number of objectionable features as well as tending to discourage development. It was for that reason that Liberal Members of Parliament in the Commons opposed the Bill, both on Second Reading and on Third Reading; and I think that was the right course. The question arises in this House, what attitude should be taken to the Second Reading? I think that the responsible attitude would not be to vote against a Second Reading. After all the Bill has been passed by the Commons, and an important part of it has been designated as a Money Bill. Therefore I think that we must attempt in Committee to remove some of its worst anomalies.
Those remarks were by way of preface. It is reported that Mr. Gladstone, when addressing a large public meeting, and after speaking for an hour, paused for a moment and said, "Gentlemen, that was my preface". Well, my Lords, in this case one has to choose between making a detailed criticism of the Bill, which would involve a speech of Gladstonian length, or offering a few comments on the principles of the Bill and the main objections to it. I propose to follow the latter
1104
course. In the first place, I suggest that this levy is, in effect, a capital gains tax; and that for many firms dealing in development there will be three taxes to be considered and taken into their calculations when deciding what to do. There will be the corporation tax, the existing capital gains tax, and then there will be the levy. I suggest that this three-tier taxation is unnecessarily cumbersome. I am not arguing against the principle of collecting values created by the community, and, in particular, values which arise as a result of planning permission. I think the principle is sound; in fact, I advocated it for a long time.
In March of this year there was a very interesting conference in London, called a colloquium, organised under the auspices of the Acton Society Trust, which discussed the whole subject of land values. With the exception of myself, there was a very impressive gathering of experts. There were, of course, differing views on this subject of collecting l and values. The suggestion that there should be a Land Commission was put forward in one quarter, but I doubt very much whether, had this Bill been published at that time, a single voice would have been raised in favour of it. I came away from that conference convinced that the only way to collect land values without deterring development would be by way of a ground rent, payable annually, based on site value and rising and falling as the site value rose or fell, with the rent re-calculated, say, every five years. That would be fundamentally different from this present levy, which is, in effect, a capital gains tax imposed on certain specific events.
I cannot see any real merit in having two capital gains taxes—because that, in effect, is what will happen. I agree that it is not intended that there should be double taxation, but while much of what is in these very complicated clauses and Schedules is intended to prevent double taxation, there may nevertheless be some overlapping. Nor does it alter the fact that there will be three taxes, the corporation tax, the capital gains tax and a levy. It is an extremely complicated piece of legislation. Another objection, which has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, is that

1105
we shall have two entirely different bodies collecting the same kind of revenue, the Inland Revenue collecting income and other taxes and the Land Commission collecting the levy. This seems to me to be a bad precedent. I have listened to the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on this point, but I still think that it is a bad precedent, and we are bound to ask why it has been introduced.
Some light was thrown on this in an article by Mr. Skeffington, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources, in the Building Societies' Gazette. In December, 1965, in an article in the Gazette, Mr. Desmond Heap, Comptroller and City Solicitor, City of London, criticised the proposals in the White Paper, among other things the suggestion that the levy should be raised and collected by the Land Commission. In reply, Mr. Skeffington said:
"One final point must be made in reply to this suggestion that development value ought to be dealt with by the Inland Revenue through the capital gains tax. I have already mentioned the risk that the levy may lead to land being withheld from the market and that, for this reason, the levy-collecting body must be equipped with compulsory purchase powers."
Earlier he had said:
"…we must also have powers to ensure that necessary development is not prevented by owners withholding their land on account of the levy."
That seems to me to give away the whole show. I am aware that the noble and learned Lord made somewhat similar observations. In effect, it means this. In this Bill, we are imposing a levy which it is thought will deter some people from developing their land or selling it for development; and, therefore, having imposed a levy which will deter development, we then set about adding additional compulsory powers to offset the effect of the levy introduced in the same Bill. On the one hand, we deter development; on the other, we introduce additional compulsory powers to offset that effect.
Again a number of anomalies may arise. These, of course, will come to light as we see how the Bill works out in practice. Take, for example, the case of a man who owns a piece of land and decides to build a house which he intends
1106
to use for his own occupation and to make it large enough for his wife's parents to live with him. As I understand it, in that case he may be exempt from levy. But suppose he decides that it would be better that his in-laws should live in another house and there is sufficient land available to build two houses, one for himself, his wife and family and another for his in-laws. He gets planning permission to build the second house and lets it to his wife's parents. If I interpret the Bill correctly, he will be liable to levy. But he may be so confused, and feel that it is all so unfair that there should be this levy, that he decides not to build on the land at all. In that case the Land Commission may come along and take the land away from him by compulsory purchase, because he has been deterred from developing by fear of the prospect of a levy.
Again, the levy is imposed under a number of different provisions and is somewhat of a hit-and-miss affair. It is true that there are a great many shots, in order to try to hit as many people as possible. Nevertheless, it is a somewhat hit-and-miss affair. We have Cases A to F set out in Clause 27. Case F reads as follows:
"On the occurrence on or after the first appointed day of such other acts or events relating to the land as are designated for the purposes of this Case by or under section 35 of this Act."
The clauses from Clause 28 onwards deal with each different Case—all lengthy clauses—until we come to Clause 35, which covers about one and a half pages, the effect of which is to enact that this matter will be decided by regulations. So that, in effect, Case F covers a variety of instances where the levy will be imposed as a result of regulations. We are going to have taxation by regulation. I should have thought that that was not very sound in principle.
It has been suggested in another place, but I do not think so far in this debate, that this may be a stepping stone to the nationalisation of land. That may be so. If it is, it is an extremely involved way of bringing it about. The objection to nationalisation, which has often been discussed over the last half-century, is a practical one—namely, that it would involve a large bureaucracy. It seems to me that under this Bill that we are creating a bureaucracy whether we have

1107
nationalisation or not. Coming back to the point which I made at the outset, I consider that we have to think of those who have to interpret and operate these proposals. It is an appalling prospect. It is legislation run riot. I do not think that the objectives to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has referred will be achieved, and I believe the people of this country will live to regret this Bill.
4.48 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I rise to speak on this subject with a nostalgic feeling. I seem to have heard all this before. I heard it twenty years ago, when the Town and Country Planning Bill was introduced in 1946. It would almost seem as if both noble Lords, Lord Brooke of Cumnor and Lord Wade, had gone back to that day, looked up Hansard and repeated the speeches that were made at that time. I well remember all the arguments that were then put forward. But the 1947 Act, as the Bill became, originated in the days of the Coalition Government, and was accepted by all Parties, particularly the principle of levying a development change.
Your Lordships may remember that that originated from the Report of the Uthwatt Committee, which was established during the war, in 1942, to examine the case for restoring to the community the whole or a portion of the values which it had itself created following the development of land and at that time there was almost unanimity on the levying of a development charge. The quarrel was as to the means, as to the method and as to the setting up of the so-called Central Land Board. We are hearing all this again to-day. I would not have referred to this to-day, but the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, thought it right to condemn the 1947 Act as being unworkable because of the 100 per cent. development charge, and contended, therefore, that the then Government were justified in 1953 in repealing that section of the Act. I thought it only fair to put the point to the noble Lord, that if the objection was to the 100 per cent. development charge—which is what he said: and he said that if it had been less it would have been workable—then why did not the then Government reduce the charge?
1108
The 100 per cent. charge was imposed not under the Act, but by way of a regulation, and I have never pretended that it was the right thing to do. When the right to develop had been acquired, it was logical to charge a corresponding amount; but it was not wise. I must take full responsibility for having imposed the 100 per cent. charge; and that I do. But when I write my memoirs, in fifty years' time, I shall explain how it came about. But I would ask this question of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and others who are going to make the same point: why did they not reduce the amount of the development charge, rather than abolish it altogether?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Lord's question directly, because I was not a member of the Government in 1953. There is something in what he says. I think it is possible to make an arguable case in favour of reduction of the development charge in 1953, instead of its complete abolition. But I suspect the fact was that by that time development charge, being 100 per cent., had become so unpopular that it was felt by the then Government that no modification of the charge would achieve the result which almost everybody thought was desirable—that is, a drastic change to enable development to speed up.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Lord is conjecturing, of course, and I should not have thought that was a very good reason. The fact remains that the community had already paid for a good deal of this development value, and that was lost to the community.
But there is one other result that flowed from the abolition of the development charge at that time, and it is that since 1954 land values have enormously increased. I have made some inquiries as to the increase in land values, and I find that since 1954 they have gone up 500 per cent. In other words, all this increase in land values, which nobody can suggest has been created by the owners of land—the increases are due in large measure to the activities of the community—has gone into the pockets of the actual landowners. Had this Bill, or the 1947 Act, been in operation, the community would have been saved hundreds of millions of pounds every year, and

1109
land prices, cost of building and development would have been much less.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, finds it difficult to argue entirely against some kind of levy, but he thinks it would be more appropriate that it should be dealt with by means of general taxation or by means of a capital gains tax. Apart altogether from the question of administration (and I maintain that it would be much more difficult to deal with this matter through the ordinary tax machinery), I would suggest to the noble Lord that if it were dealt with through the instrumentality of the capital gains tax, an owner of land would be entitled to set off other losses which have no bearing at all on the question of land against the gains on land. It seems to me that this would be grossly unfair and quite out of accord with the general policy of this Bill.
A good deal of the criticism from the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and the noble Lord, Lord Wade. consisted of detailed points about detailed items. I should be very glad indeed if those points were raised and discussed later, because there may he something in them. I think there may be something in the criticism of Clause 8 of the Bill; and there may even be something in the criticism about the difficulty of the clause which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, read to the House. I would only say that a great deal depends on the way in which a clause is read. The noble Lord read it very fast, and naturally, in a Bill of this kind, which is technical in language, nobody could be expected to follow it read at that speed.
I congratulate both the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and the noble Lord, Lord Wade, on doing the best they could with a bad job. But we have to accept the principle that a development levy is right. It is impossible to dispute the fact that the increase in the value of land as a result of planning permission is very largely due to the activities of the community. I see the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch and Queens berry, here. He knows perfectly well that if he could get planning permission and develop 1,000 acres of his land he would make an even bigger fortune than he already possesses.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: My Lords, the noble Lord knows quite well that we develop our land intensively for agricultural and forestry production.
LORD SILKIN: I am sorry; I should not have directed my remarks to the noble Duke. But the fact remains that we all know from our own experience that agricultural land in England and Wales is worth something of the order of £200 to £300 an acre, and that if planning permission to develop can be obtained, even the least profitable kind of development is worth ten times that sum. It cannot be suggested that that increase in value, purely as the result of a grant of planning permission, justifies the owner's retaining the whole value of that increase. There may be other land adjoining which is not so treated, and the owner does not get the increase. The whole thing is a great gamble. Therefore I think we must accept to-day, as has been accepted for many years past, that it is right for the community to try to get back the increase in the value of land that is due to its own efforts. I think it is justifiable to look at this Bill to see whether it will succeed in that effort and whether the means by which it is proposed to collect the development levy are the best.
Some criticism has been offered against the setting up of a Land Commission to collect the levy. We had the same sort of criticism against the setting up of the Central Land Board in 1947. But I am sure it is right; I am sure it is not a duplication. It is essential that the body which is collecting the levy should also have the other powers of acquisition of land and so on, which are conferred upon it by this Bill. I think the noble Lord, Lord Wade, suggested that it would interfere with the powers of local authorities and others who already have powers of compulsory acquisition. But the fact is that it is not proposed that the Land Commission should carry out the powers of the local authorities. Local authorities wanting to acquire land will be able to do so without any interference from the Land Commission.
There are clearly numbers of cases where under existing legislation it would be quite impossible for a local authority to acquire land. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has referred

1111
to the case of the landowner who would prefer to hold back his land and refrain from development in the hope—and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, encouraged him in that hope—that there may be a future Government who would do the same as was done in 1953, the wisdom of which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, now appears to doubt. But there may well be such owners of land, and it is right that the Land Commission should be in a position to acquire their land compulsorily if that land is really required in the interests of the community for development. That is something which could not be done by the local authorities under existing powers.
Moreover, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor stressed the fact that from the point of view of the economic interests of this country it was essential that we should be able to acquire land where it was needed and when it was needed. We have at the present time over a thousand local authorities, all empowered to acquire land. But their criterion is not to acquire it where it is most needed by the national interest: all they are concerned with is what is the interest of their own community. It is quite right that that should be so. But the concern of the Land Commission will be to take a much broader picture—a regional, or even a national picture—to see that development is carried out in places where development is most needed, and that there is not this competition for land between these thousand different local authorities. It is essential, if we are to carry out the general policy of redeployment of labour, that there should be mobility. As mobility of labour involves the building of large numbers of houses in places where employment is available, it is only by means of a Land Commission looking at the picture as a whole that such land can be made available for the purpose.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive my interrupting, but he seems to be suggesting that the Land Commission will decide for themselves where the land is needed for the nation. As the Land Commission have no planning functions, could he explain how they will derive that knowledge?
LORD SILKIN: They will have to get planning permission, and I cannot conceive that any Land Commission would be allowed, quite irresponsibly, to acquire large areas of land all over the country without any kind of control by the appropriate Minister. They will have to get information as to where land is required for development, and it will be their function merely to secure that land.
Local authorities have not the power to acquire land on any substantial scale in anticipation of future requirements. I can say from my own personal experience that we have been saved hundreds of millions of pounds through New Town corporations being empowered to acquire land in anticipation. Each of the New Towns acquired some thousands of acres at a time when there was no development and no planning permission. If they had waited until the land was ripe and planning permission had been obtained, they would have had to pay much more, perhaps five or six times more, for the land than they did. When one multiplies that sort of case all over the country, one can well see what a tremendous advantage it would be for a Land Commission to be able to acquire land in anticipation. But that could not possibly be done by the local authorities. The kind of land which would be acquired would spread over many areas. It would not necessarily be confined to the area of a particular local authority, and we can be quite certain that if it were left to the local authorities it would not come about.
Nor have the local authorities the resources to enable them to acquire land in anticipation. They would have to borrow on a very large scale, and very few local authorities could afford to do that. For that reason alone it is essential to have a central body, a national body, available to acquire necessary land. Moreover, under Clause 62 of the Bill it is contemplated that assistance will be given to private builders and that there will be a limited exemption from the levy. Here again it would not be practicable to expect local authorities to do that.
I was glad that neither the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, nor the noble Lord, Lord Wade, referred to the argument about "creeping nationalisation." I had come prepared to deal with that argument but since they did not raise

1113
it, I will leave it. Perhaps one noble Lord will raise it again in some future speech. But it was made a good deal of in another place.
VISCOUNT GAGE: With reason.
LORD SILKIN: I have some excellent replies to that point, and it is a great pity it was not raised.
I will not indulge in criticism of the Bill or comment on any particular clauses of it. I am sorry that the noble Lord who is to reply is not here, but there is one matter I should have liked to mention and to have a reply to. Why are not the whole of the proceeds of the levy going to be entrusted to the Land Commission? I see that they are going to be able to deduct the levy in cases where they acquire land and in certain other cases, and they will be able to retain that money, but as regards the general levy, when development is about to take place, they are required to pay the proceeds into the funds of the Exchequer and there is no obligation on the Exchequer to treat that as being different from any other monies they acquire. Therefore these monies will be lost in the general revenue and treated, presumably, in the same way as tax derived from motor car licences, which originally was intended for road improvement. Would it not be far better if the whole of the proceeds of the levy were entrusted in to the hands of the Land Commission so as to ensure that they dealt with the whole of it in the way that was most appropriate?
I now want to say a few words about the unintelligibility of the Bill. It is stated to be vague and badly drafted, difficult, and impossible to follow, and that noble Lords have spent weeks in studying it without success. I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, did not say that it was wholly unintelligible, as was said in another place. Like other noble Lords, I myself have spent a certain amount of time reading this Bill. I am not going to pretend that it is not capable of improvement, but taking this Bill by and large and having regard to the complexities of our land system and to the desire to be fair and to deal with a larger variety of cases separately in the Bill, and having regard also to the fact that, as we know, in spite of the shortage of lawyers there must be law-
1114
yers who are busily engaged in seeing how the provisions of this Bill can be evaded, it was essential to get something that was watertight and tried to provide for every possible case.
I must confess that, while I would agree one cannot read this Bill like a novel, and certainly not at the speed that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, read out one paragraph, I found it on the whole quite intelligible. There were quite a number of occasions when one had to read a clause twice, or even three times, but at the end of the day I found it quite intelligible and, if they are sincere criticisms, I fail to understand those people who say they cannot understand a word of it, as one person said in another place.
This, again, is reminiscent of my 1947 Act. I think it is even said to-day by kind people that there was only one person who could understand the Bill at the time: unkind people said that even that one person could not understand it. But it was not true, and the discussion in Committee at that time proved that it was not true because it was fully understood. I am only sorry that three noble Lords who were on the Committee of the Bill at the time—the noble Lord, Lord Cones-ford, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and the noble Lord, Lord Molson—are not here and are not taking part in the discussion; but certainly whatever may have been said on Second Reading, when it came to the Committee stage the Bill was intelligible and they proved it, and I am quite certain that will be the case with this Bill. In fact, it was in Committee for seventeen days in another place, and the time was not taken up in explaining the terms of the Bill but in dealing with genuine Amendments designed to deal with the merits of the Bill and certainly not with clarification.
In conclusion, I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, in expressing my own feeling that we are getting off to a good start in having appointed Sir Henry Wells as Chairman of the Land Commission. I know he will make an excellent Chairman. He has been interested in town planning and associated with the activities with which this Bill is concerned for at least twenty years. I have known him for over twenty years. As noble Lords will

1115
know, he is a member of a well-known firm of chartered surveyors and has given many years of his life to public work as a member, vice-chairman and chairman of one of the new town development corporations, and in a great many other similar capacities. I am sure that we have the right man, one who is not self-opinionated or arrogant, a man who will listen but who is quite capable of making up his mind at the end, and I know we all wish him every possible success.
I am assured now that this Bill will receive an unopposed Second Reading, but I look forward to a long and valuable Committee stage. I hope the Government will not try to curtail discussion. I am sure that we in this House will have a valuable contribution to make in improving this Bill, and if we look at it objectively, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, in an unguarded moment, said we should, and try to improve the Bill, it will emerge as a piece of machinery of which we can feel proud and will falsify all the predictions which have been made about it as to its unworkability. Having given it a Second Reading our job must be to make it workable, and I am confident that we can do so.
5.19 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I suppose all Bills that are produced in response to popular agitation tend to develop characteristics which in human beings might be called evidence of split personality, by which I mean that the campaign that precedes the introduction of a Bill may bear little resemblance to the finished product. There was certainly an agitation, indeed a clamour, for something to be done about what was called "the scandal of high land prices", and the theory was generally held, and indeed held with the encouragement of the Government, that these prices were deliberately engineered by a group of people called speculators, with the obvious inference that if the speculators were only seen off the prices of land would come tumbling down. The Minister of Land was therefore presented as a sort of Robin Hood figure who was going to take away the ill-gotten gains of these evil rich men and distribute them to the meritorious poor, which all through
1116
the ages has been a very popular thing to do.
Those of us who have had something to do with these matters in the past may have been a little mystified by this campaign. I had been chairman of a county planning committee for some twenty years in an area in which there was a good deal of building, and I had never met anybody who quite fitted in with this conception of a speculator. It is true that at one time we were concerned about the amount of land that remained undeveloped although it had planning consent, but we went into this, and in nearly every case it was found that the explanation was that development companies and builders, particularly the larger builders, maintained reserves of land which they developed only in accordance with the market for the houses they built on it.
One of the arguments advanced nowadays seems to be that if you take land from big builders and give it to little builders you will reduce the cost of housing. I think that is a very debatable question. I know that there was no local feeling about these big development companies; the local feeling, such as there was, was almost entirely directed against the town planning authorities, people like myself, who were accused of artificially raising the price of land by the restrictions we were imposing. I certainly came to the conclusion—I speak with limited knowledge—that at any rate in my county the price of land had not been engineered by anybody; it was simply due to the normal process of the market, to the queue of people who were looking for a particular piece of land; and to say that the price of land would come tumbling down if the speculators were removed seemed to me to contain just about as much sense as saying that if you did away with all the jobbers on the London Stock Exchange the price of shares would come tumbling down. I may be wrong, but there has been so much emotion and so little real investigation of this matter that I may equally be right.
Anyway, I was very much interested to see how the speculators would be defined in this Bill: whether, for example, they would include such bodies as British Railways, who, we were told, last year sold 28 acres of land to the Greater

1117
London Council at a price of £125,000 an acre. But when the Bill appeared the answer to all this became clear, because we were all to be speculators—anybody who desired to sell a house or land—with a certain group of exceptions. So Robin Hood seems to have turned into something suspiciously like an employee of the Board of Inland Revenue, which is a far less glamorous position and I believe will be a far less popular one. As has been stated, the means whereby they will collect this levy is of almost incredible complexity, and I certainly should not think of vying with the Conservative members of the committee in another place who went through these complexities and had the unusual distinction of being congratulated by the Minister on how well they had done. I certainly should like to add my tribute as well.
But I am much more concerned with the positive functions of this Commission, the raison d'être of the Commission, all the things they will do which the Board of Inland Revenue could not do. It seems to me that these functions fall into three rough groups. There is the acquisition of land to be sold at market value—market value may be higher than the value at which it was bought or in certain cases it might be lower. Then there is the acquisition of land to be disposed of at special concessionary terms to certain favoured people, which I am very glad to see includes housing associations, with which movement I have been connected. Finally there is assistance to local authorities, financial and also material—and this is the point I wish to come on to—apparently on occasion taking over certain of their functions.
All these merit serious consideration, but I feel that the first thing to try to establish is what the real resources of the Commission will be. To put it in colloquial language, if we know how much money the Commission will have to play with we can form some idea of the total impact they are going to make on the life of the community. They will obviously want money to acquire land; they will want money to assist local authorities and they will want money in very large quantities to do any development or redevelopment. So far as I understand it, which is probably very
1118
little, they seem to derive their money from three sources. One is the £45 million, which can be raised in certain circumstances. Then I suppose we can disregard what might be called the levy collected on third party transactions, transactions in which the Commission themselves play no part— £80 million—because I believe all that goes back to the Exchequer; I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, confirmed that. Finally we come to what they can make on trading account. They buy the land, they can keep the levy, I understand, and if they sell at a profit they can keep that. I suggest that it is almost impossible here and now to say what that will amount to in, say, five years time. I imagine it is a matter of absolute conjecture; because although you can compel a man to sell land you cannot compel another man to buy it, and the market price of land depends on various things, such as the degree of confidence in the industry, the credit squeeze and so forth.
I confess that I should rather like to listen-in to the first meeting of the Land Commission, if it has not already taken place. I imagine the proceedings would go something like this. The chairman would start by reminding the Commission of their terms of reference and would also remind them that they had been enjoined by the Treasury on the absolute necessity of balancing their books. He would invite members to suggest ways in which this £45 million should be invested. Then I suppose somebody might say, "Perhaps the soundest way would be to put it all into agricultural land near towns. You cannot lose on that sort of transaction. If we can persuade the Minister to be fairly generous with planning consents we may in five or ten years' time make a large profit, and then we shall be able to do something". Somebody else would say, "That's all very well, but you must remember that, on the law of averages in five or ten years there will be a change of Government and we shall be abolished". They would think that over and then adjourn to a working lunch. In all seriousness, what do the Government visualise that the Commission will do within the next few years? Clearly they cannot act as a sort of universal boy scout, doing good turns all round the countryside, a little bit of crownholding here, helping a local authority there, redevelopment there,

1119
all on £45 million. It really would not make administrative sense.
We have been told again this afternoon that one of the arguments for having a Land Commission and equipping it with powers over private property which far exceed anything which we have ever known in peace time is that some local authorities are not pulling their weight, either through inability or through unwillingness. I believe there will be a great deal of misunderstanding as to who is to do what unless the Government make their views much clearer. In particular, I would turn to Clause 6(4)(b), which refers to schemes of comprehensive redevelopment. This is a short paragraph, but it deals on the fringe with some of the most important problems in local government now. They are urgent problems, because the city centres are now acting as extremely efficient traffic bottlenecks. However varied their schemes may be, and however speculative they may be—and they are speculative—they all have this in common: that they mean locking up a great deal of money for quite a long period.
May I give an indication? In my own county we have in contemplation sixteen schemes, of which two are fairly advanced and one is practically completed. These two schemes will lock up about £3 million. That is two out of sixteen schemes, in a part of the country which is not noticeably derelict. It is perfectly clear that if the whole of the £45 million were used for this purpose it would not go far. That is well known to the Government, because on September 30 this year they issued a circular, from which I should like to read a couple of sentences. The circular said:
"Public investment for 'planning' purposes has grown rapidly in recent years. Loan sanctions rose from nearly £24 million in 1962/63 to nearly £50 million in 1965/66 and would have risen higher but for the deferments imposed by the Government during the past year. Within these total figures acquisition of land in advance of requirements…has risen sharply from £8 million in 1962/63 to £19 million in 1965/66…There are, at present, several hundred town centre development schemes at various stages of preparation and implementation…In total the proposed provision of facilities in town centre schemes up and down the country greatly exceeds the need and possibility of execution."
1120
Then it goes on to foreshadow a rationing scheme, which I think is a sound thing to do.
One would have imagined that if the Land Commission were going to play any part as is foreshadowed in this Bill in the task of redeveloping these city centres, and perhaps more derelict areas, there would have been one passing reference to it in this circular, but it is not once mentioned. So we are left to reconcile, as best we can, the statements of the Minister of Land and Natural Resources that local authorities are doing too little, adducing that as a reason for introducing the Bill, and this circular, which is issued from the same Ministry. If words mean anything at all, this circular suggests that they are trying to do far too much. What does it all mean? I feel that if this paragraph is left in its present state there is a real danger that at least some local authorities reading the Bill and the circular will breathe a sigh of relief and say, "If this Commission are really to take on these difficult and expensive schemes, more power to their elbow; let them take them on!". I do not believe for a moment that they will be in a position to do so.
I have ventured before now to suggest in this House that the technical, complicated and essentially long-term schemes, which we all think, in principle, ought to be carried out, will be carried out only by some measure of inter-Party agreement. If we are to have an entirely new approach every six or seven years, which is the lifetime of the ordinary Parliamentary Government over the last 150 years, we shall get involved in a game of snakes and ladders in which we shall always be back at square one. That is what is happening in local government circles now.
As I have said, we all really want the same things. I can imagine a form of Land Commission probably much more like a New Town corporation, with access to a great deal of money by loan and possessed of a great deal of technical skill, which might be of real assistance to local authorities in the task of redevelopment, and might enjoy all-Party support. The predecessor of this Bill, the Act of 1947. was, up to a point, a Bill which enjoyed a large measure of all-Party support. In fact, I would go so far as to say that had

1121
the 50 per cent. development charge then been fixed we should be administering that Act with great advantage to everybody and without any necessity for this Bill. The responsibility for this seems to be shared equally by Lord Silkin, who put it at 100 per cent., and my Party, who took it off altogether. I rather wish it had remained at 50 per cent.
But there is in this Bill little evidence of any attempt at a bipartisan approach. In some ways, it might have been deliberately designed to attract the maximum hostility from the Conservative Party as well as from many others, and positively to invite its repeal at the earliest opportunity. I believe that, because of these financial limitations, it will be, much more than has been assumed, what the Chinese call a paper tiger. I feel that it is a pity that from the point of view of the local authorities this merry-go-round looks like going on and on.
5.38 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, the first point I wish to make is one that I am sure will call for the support of every noble Lord here. This Bill may involve some returns being made by citizens. But there are other kinds of returns, too, and I should like to take the opportunity of wishing my noble friend Lord Silkin "Many happy returns!" I am sure that in that I have everybody's support.
If, for one moment, we could forget the necessarily strong Party elements in this matter, we must, I think, recognise that the trouble that lies at the root of dealings in land over many years past is one that has affected the whole country; and Lord Silkin certainly made a notable contribution to its solution. It was one that he himself says was not wholly right (I am not concerned with that), but it was a notable contribution some twenty years ago. And it was a brave contribution. The Uthwatt Committee reported during the war. It was a stiff piece of reasoning. I have always thought that the Uthwatt Report was fundamentally right. To turn it into legislation and to get through that legislation in the early years after the war, the time when it was perhaps most needed, but not the easiest time to get legislation through was, I think, a most remarkable achievement, not only of
1122
intelligence but of political courage. Therefore, I quite frankly and wholeheartedly admire my noble friend Lord Silkin for what he did on that occasion. I do not ask your Lordships to agree with my views about his Bill, but I think we can all join in the admiration which I feel for him.
On the merits of this matter we have had a good many speeches to-day which, with great respect to those who made them, collected a number of Committee points to be dealt with on a later occasion. I will do my best to pick on the main points which are raised. I will start with the Bill itself. It is said that the Bill is unintelligible, complex, too long and so on. But it is no longer than other Bills about this kind of subject, and it is absurd when the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, who was at one period Financial Secretary to the Treasury and who introduced one Finance Bill after another, complains about the complexity of particular clauses. He ought to look back at some of the clauses in the Finance Bills he himself introduced. This Bill is no worse than those—indeed, it is a great deal simpler. It has a very clear Explanatory Memorandum, and if noble Lords want to read it as bedside literature they will find the Memorandum perhaps more lively than the Bill itself. But they should avoid like poison the Part picked out by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor.
In the absence of right reverend Prelates I may perhaps remind your Lordships that Genesis is supposed to have been written by two authors. One was the priestly author; I forget what the other one was called, but they were known as "P and E". If one looks carefully at this Bill one finds traces of "P and E" in it. There is the man who did the land part, no doubt deriving from the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources, and the man who did the financial part. The language in both cases is rather different, and it is an interesting exercise to trace out the differences. The trouble is that this is a really complex problem. One has only to look at Cases A to F in which there are transactions in land that are said to call for the levy. Cases A to E cover a good deal of ground in necessarily complex language. But at the end of

1123
the day you must sweep it up with a general case, Case F.
What is the alternative to this sort of complication? One can try to make a very simple Bill. One will immediately get more anomalies in a complicated land system like ours. I suggest that my right honourable friend the Minister was quite right in saying that the first duty of a Government, in a Bill of this kind, is to make clear to people, so far as they can, no matter how complicated it is, what it seeks to do. Then, if need be, they should issue explanatory memoranda, circulars and so on, to add a further explanation of the Bill, or Parts of it. But one cannot avoid dealing with a serious national subject simply because it is complicated.
The second alternative is one that has been taken time and again in cases of this kind; that is, to leave an enormous amount to be done by regulation. Noble Lords to-day have been complaining that there is already too much left to regulation. If one had tried to carry this a stage further, one would then have had a Bill crawling with references to regulation, and nobody would have been able to find out what it was about without looking at regulations. I suggest that one ought not to legislate in that way.
Some noble Lords have been near saying that the problem with which the Bill seeks to deal is in some ways a national scandal. It is certainly a national burden, a question of prime importance to the nation. But we cannot say, just because it is too complicated, that we are not going to deal with it. One cannot admit that; that cannot be right. There must be some other way out of the difficulty.
Taking that sort of stand in the matter, is it inevitable that the Bill should be as complex as it is? I suggest that it is, and the very interesting speech made by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, illustrated this very well. He began by saying that this was not all a matter of the operation of speculators. And I quite agree. Then he went on to say that a great deal of it was due to the natural rise in the cost of land. It is, and it is these two things, taken together, which make the difficulty.
I would remind your Lordships of the Lavender Hill case. I do not know if
1124
one would call them speculators, but I do know that as was stated in another place
"Lavender Garden Properties, having bought a plot of land for £7,500, sold it to the London Borough of Enfield for £240,000. But, not satisfied with this, since the borough council later obtained a better planning permission for blocks of flats from my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, the company is now claiming. I believe, a further £150,000 under the provisions of Part IV of the Land Compensation Act 1961."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Commons, Vol. 728 (No. 19), col. 619; 12/5/66.]
It may not be speculation, but are they not being just a little greedy? Is not the law allowing them to be rather too greedy? Mr. Rachman caused a good deal of trouble in the Paddington area, and he kept within the law. So did these people; but if the law is like that, I suggest that it needs to be the changed. The 1947 Act was repealed, I think, in 1953. We are now in 1966, and until 1964, the Tory Party were in power. They recognised this evil but did nothing whatever to deal with it. The result is that not only private people but local authorities all over the country have had to pay, as they have had to pay in this case, far too much for the property which they needed in order to perform their statutory duties and to carry out their job as local authorities. It cannot be right that that should be so; it does not stand to sense.
I notice that, whatever criticisms noble Lords opposite made of the Bill, they were rather slow to condemn the principle either of the levy or of the Land Commission. I will deal with the two matters as shortly as I can. The levy, in whatever form it comes, is a matter for taxation. Part III would be a Supply Bill if it had been by itself. However, it is not by itself, and therefore there is no technical objection to your Lordships dealing in detail with taxation questions if you think fit to do so. It is a question for the Party opposite, who have a built-in majority in this House, whether they think it right to deal in detail here with what are really taxation questions.
There is this to be remembered, too. It has been said that the levy will involve a large number of offences and a considerable expense, but there is already a tax on capital gains in land. It was actually introduced in the form of a short-term capital gains tax by a Conservative

1125
Government. It was a recognition that such gains merited taxation. It has now become a capital gains tax and it will need modification in the next Finance Bill in order to ensure that that tax and this tax do not both fall in the same place. It will be taxed once in respect of development value. That is done by this Bill and current use value will be dealt with by a process of separation in the next Finance Bill, as we have been told.
If one is going to say that the Inland Revenue ought to do it all because this involves a whole new step, one ought to remember that the Inland Revenue are coping with a great deal of this; and if one is talking about valuers any valuation will have to be done by the Inland Revenue valuation officers, as it always is in these cases, whether it is a valuation for the purposes of this levy or a valuation for the land element in the capital gains tax.
There are two other objections. One is that I am sure your Lordships would feel it wrong that the taxation machinery should be used for purposes unconnected with taxation if it can be avoided; that is to say, we do not want to tack detailed political considerations on to the collection of taxes. These detailed political considerations are clearly involved in this case, because the levy here is part of the machinery for securing that the proper flow of land continues to come to the market, and for securing that Lavender Hill gains—I go on saying Lavender Hill, because of a very good film about Lavender Hill which I remember seeing—are not going to be made in the future. At present, these people are making nearly £500,000 out of a transaction at the expense of a local authority and the local authority's public requirements. Of course, this money ought to be taxed. It is, in fact, being taxed to some extent by the capital gains tax, but I suggest that that ought to be regarded as part of the whole Bill; that is, as part of the really important part of the Bill dealing with what the Land Commission have to do.
I turn to the Land Commission. It seems to me quite off the point to say that the local authorities could do all of this and that there is no need to have anybody else. There are at least two outstanding difficulties in the way of a local
1126
authority. A local authority has duties to its constituents, to the ratepayers in the area, and they are local duties. When once the Corporation of Glasgow attempted to interfere in the elections in a neighbouring town—I think it was Rutherglen—they were restrained by the courts from spending Glasgow money on dealing with the affairs of Rutherglen. They were trying to queer the elections. It is a very odd story, but it happened all right. Therefore your local authority cannot necessarily, however well intentioned it is, look beyond the boundaries of its own local authority area.
Surely, nowadays, we cannot say that there are no needs of the country which cannot be met within local authority areas even over quite simple things. Recently this House dealt with commons. There are commons stretching from one county to another. Moreover, there are housing schemes shared between different local authorities, and so on. It is obvious that we want a body which can look on a broader front than the local authorities. Secondly, the local authorities are in no position to buy well in advance of need. That has become increasingly apparent in recent years as something which ought to be dealt with, and I hope that it will appeal to your Lordships for reasons of economy in rates. If you wait till the very last minute, whether you are a local authority or not, you find, oddly enough, that you have to pay a lot more for your land.
I am not going to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, into questions of £45 million or £75 million. If he thinks the amount ought to be larger, well there it is. But leaving that aside, there must surely be a body in a position to buy in advance, and to buy in cases where more than one local authority is concerned. I know that we are arranging for the reorganisation of local government and considering what should be done about it. But the principle must be right.
We have then been told that these are unprecedented powers, and all kinds of things. I thought my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor produced a pretty good precedent for all the powers. The ones which appeared to cause most trouble were the special procedure powers. They had been tried in an Act in 1946 directly after the end of the war. They had been tried for five years, and

1127
we were told—I would certainly accept it—that they caused no great trouble. Why are the similar powers in this Bill going to upset everybody and disturb the universe, if those other similar powers were exercised without causing much trouble?
Then it is said that the Land Commission are going to act on their own; they are going to buy large sections of land which they consider suitable for development; that they ought not to be trusted to consider whether or not the land is suitable; and that there is not enough backing from the Ministry and not sufficient need for ministerial approval. When one comes to look at this, one finds that in the cases where it is not necessary to get ministerial approval in advance, the approval has, if there are objections, to be obtained at a later stage.
Here I call in aid the noble Viscount, Lord Gage. He feels—and I agree with him thus far—that there are a great many matters on which people of all Parties could be agreed. This is particularly true about local government, and I can understand a council being of the opinion, apart from Party, that something ought to be done about such-and-such a site or such-and-such a housing development. In a case of that kind there may well be no objections, but if there are objections then the ministerial sanction and approval come in.
I have looked through the Bill, by and large, and I have read it with some care, but I cannot see that the Land Commission are in a position to be tyrannical, even if they wished to be tyrannical. But why should we assume that a public body such as this, with a chairman whom we have all been congratulating on his appointment—and I should like to add my own congratulations—are going to be tyrants? Would your Lordships prefer to be governed by the Lavender Hill people, who are going to make nearly £500,000 out of Ealing Council? They are a far more effective government, under the chaotic conditions that apply at present on this matter, than could be found in many other ways.
My Lords, if you want chaos and rising land prices, with absurd and anti-social profits made out of them, then of course you must oppose the Bill. But no noble
1128
Lord has done that so far. We are all agreed substantially, I think, that in principle the Bill is right. I end by saying this to noble Lords opposite. I remember, and so do your Lordships, Bruce Bairnsfather's cartoon with the famous remark:
"If you know of a better 'ole, go to it."
There is quite a good one in this Bill.
5.58 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I pro-prose to go to "a better 'ole", and will leave the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, with "the Lavender Hill Mob" above ground. I can, however, agree with him that although the details of this Bill are very complicated, the philosophy behind it is quite plain.
I want to say a word or two about the philosophy of this Bill with regard to minerals. No one has said anything about minerals to-day, but I think it is an important point. It was hardly touched on in another place, and I think I am right in saying that it was not even mentioned in the White Paper. I agree there were certain Amendments which brought out the general principle concerning minerals, but the subject was not discussed on Second Reading in another place, nor were the owners of minerals consulted. The operators were consulted, but this is quite different, and it is part of the charge which I make in this context that the Government have considered the mineral operators' case but not that of the mineral owners. I wonder whether originally the Government meant minerals to be covered by the Bill at all.
And why, then, were minerals included at the last minute? I do not myself think they should be there. I think they are irrelevant to this Bill, and I hope to make that point.
I wonder whether it was not, in fact, a mistake that arose because minerals had been in the Town and Country Planning Act 1947. Or, if it was not that, I wonder whether private pressure has been brought to bear on the Government since they wrote their White Paper. It is true that the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 dealt with minerals, but that Act had aims totally different from those of this Bill. It virtually nationalised minerals; and, of course, it was dealing with planning. This Bill is not dealing

1129
with planning. Planning, particularly in relation to minerals, is dealt with elsewhere. Nor is there any question of nationalisation in this Bill.
The two objectives of the Land Commission Bill are quite different and quite clear. First of all, there is the question of the availability of those minerals; and, secondly, there is the question of betterment. I think that, so far as minerals are concerned in this Bill, both of those questions are irrelevant. First of all, I do not think that betterment really applies to minerals at all; or, in so far as it does apply, it is only to a very slight degree. After all, the mineral remains dormant in the ground until it is required, and once it has been worked it cannot be replaced. It is a wasting asset: its value diminishes as working proceeds. Its presence in the land is not, in fact, a creation of the community; and whereas in the case of surface-developed land a permanent increase in value is created, this does not happen in the case of minerals.
I agree that a case can be made for this not being so with regard to sand and gravel. It can be argued that sand or gravel is unlike the major minerals, in that when it lies near building development there has been a creation by the community of an unearned increment. I think this is so only to a limited degree, and, after all, sand and gravel is still a wasting asset. There has been no permanent increase in value that has been created by the community, except, as I say, to a small degree; and it seems to me, therefore, that any unearned increment (if, indeed, there has been any) is really better treated in this context by the ordinary methods of taxation and not by the levy.
The second objective of the Land Commission Bill is the question of availability. On this point I really cannot see that the Bill is necessary at all. I agree that outside minerals a case for it can be made—and, indeed, I thought that the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, were very forceful and powerful, ones; but I do not see that these arguments apply to minerals. There is already on the Statute Book a brand-new Act dealing with minerals—the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966. This is a consolidating Act,
1130
and it covers, so far as I can see, every Act that has dealt with minerals, from the 1923 Act, which dealt with the Railways and Canal Commission, to another consolidating Act in 1945, and so on. The 1966 Act, which as I say is a consolidating Act but is, in fact, quite new, gives a special form of compulsory acquisition of mining rights, and it releases mineral operators from a great many of the difficulties which they have had. It helps them get out of old restrictions under leases and agreements; and it gives new powers to mineral operators to get agreement where they have not been able to get it before.
The Act gives, indeed, an up-to-date pattern of procedure right through all the difficulties and problems which mineral operators have had to face in the past. It is a pattern of how the mineral-extraction industry should conduct itself nowadays. It is a very helpful Act; and so far as mineral operators are concerned, it is a charter of freedom for them. So much is that so that there is a danger that mineral operators are getting some of that freedom at the expense of other people; that is to say, the landowner and mineral owner.
If I am right in saying that, at any rate so far as the major minerals are concerned the Mines Act of 1966 gives everything that the mineral operator could possibly want, why should one want to go beyond it by putting minerals into the Land Commission Bill at all? In another place the Minister gave an assurance that, so far as major minerals are concerned, he would not use the powers that he hopes to take under the Land Commission Bill until every facility under the Mines Act 1966 had been exhausted. This is an extremely valuable concession. This Bill goes too far. I agree that the Minister, in giving this concession, must feel that he has at his back a long-stop, so that, in the last resort, there is something which gives him an ultimate sanction; but this Bill goes beyond giving the Minister a long-stop. It seeks to set the Land Commission above the law.
Now the present position, so far as minerals are concerned, is that it is the courts which decide what rights an operator ought to have if he cannot get agreement with an owner. I cannot see that it is right that the Land Commission

1131
should have complete power to acquire rights in land without going through the ordinary law, when the existing law is as effective as it is. If it should, then the obvious, logical conclusion would be to repeal the Mines Act 1966, which has just been passed. That Act recognizes that there is a special law and a special form of procedure for mineral workings. Why should this not be retained and applied to the Land Commission? Because, after all, the Mines Act is new. Is it being suggested by noble Lords opposite that it is already out of date? I cannot believe that this is so. Or is it suggested that it is not powerful enough? This is not the impression that I get from the discussions which appear to have taken place between the Government and the mineral operators. So far as I can make out, they are perfectly happy with the powers, the very extensive powers, which they can get through the Mines Act 1966.
The thing that may be worrying the Government here is that there might be a special case for sand and gravel. I rather doubt this. I cannot help feeling that the sort or arguments that the sand and gravel interests bring forward are very often those arguments for urgency which we hear so often in other connections, such as water, when the mineral operators (or the water undertakers) want to by-pass the ordinary procedure in their own interests. The arguments they use are very often extremely specious ones, with a great deal of talk about the public good and about the importance in this particular case of housing, and so on. What they really mean, very often, is that it suits them personally.
I believe this amounts to a good case for leaving minerals out of the Bill altogether. In the first place, it does not help availability at all, and in the second place betterment is not relevant to minerals. It is interesting to note that minerals are rather more heavily—I will not say, unfairly—taxed than anything else. I think that minerals are not really a fit subject for a betterment tax.
If the Government do not accept this view, if they feel that such a Bill is necessary in order to get availability of minerals, which I say they have, and if they still feel minerals are a subject for
1132
betterment, I should like to put in a plea that we should have fair treatment under the regulations. I should like to know whether the regulations are yet available. They are very important. Have those regulations in fact been given to the mineral operators but not to the mineral owners? The tie-up with next year's Finance Act will not be clear, so far as the mineral owners are concerned, until we see these regulations. I should be interested to know whether they are available and, if so, whether they have been shown to the operators, but not to the landowners. The Government think they have treated with the industry and seem to be unaware that they have treated with only one side of it.
I realise that the matter of the regulations is partly a Committee point, and after what the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, said in this context, and particularly because it is a financial matter, I hesitate to develop it. But it raises issues of anomaly with the previous methods of mineral taxation. Normally minerals are treated as income, but under the Land Commission Bill it is proposed to treat them as capital. I think they should always be treated as capital because they are a wasting asset. With modern methods of extraction they are an asset that quickly depreciates. There could be large royalties and heavy taxes in one year, but the asset could soon depreciate to nothing. They should be subject to a depreciation allowance. In the case of the old coal royalties which went on for ever there was a great deal to be said for treating them as income, but I feel that in the case of minerals still in the hands of mineral owners, in view of modern extractive methods, the royalties should be thought of, and dealt with, as capital. Perhaps the Government are moving towards this in so far as they have suggested under the new Bill that they are going to treat them as capital for the purposes of the levy.
My Lords, in conclusion, I would reiterate my points, which are that minerals should not be covered in this Bill; that it is not helpful to the Government's main objectives, from the point of view of either availability or betterment, that they should be in the Bill, and, finally, that if the Government still feel they should be in the Bill then I hope that some effort will be made to

1133
treat us more fairly than we have been treated in the past, not only with regard to consultation but also with regard to tax anomalies.
6.15 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, introducing this Bill this afternoon, spoke with great confidence of its success and of the success of the arrangements which it proposes to enact. I wish I were able to share his assurance. This Bill is the latest chapter in the long chronicle of attempts to capture development value or, as this Bill calls it, betterment. But hitherto the evasive butterfly of betterment has escaped its captors and is still at large.
From the early years of the 19th century radical literature has resounded with denunciations of the infamous landlord and the profit he took from the land and had not earned. Those were the days of Henry George, of Progress and Poverty. Henry George is a forgotten author to-day, although perhaps some of your Lordships who are a little older, as I am, will recall the power and influence which his book once possessed. I think Mr. Lloyd George was the first Minister to attempt to give practical shape to these considerations. He found it, I think in 1909, a convenient platform from which to abuse his Conservative opponents. He introduced his proposals in the Finance Act of 1909 (I do not propose to enter into them this afternoon), but in the end it was found that the cost of the collection of the tax exceeded the yield, and the whole machinery of that tax was swept away by a Government of which Mr. Lloyd George was the head.
In 1947, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, entered the field. I regret that I did not hear the noble Lord's speech this afternoon. His Act of 1947 was, I think, the most promising attempt to capture development value and betterment. It came nearer to reality than any other attempts and proposals which had been made. But the Act was killed by the folly with which it was administered. The development charge was fixed at 100 per cent.; even in the case of local authorities purchasing undeveloped land for the purpose of open spaces they were required to pay 25 percent. of the development value, although in fact they
1134
had purchased the land for the express purpose of preventing it from being developed. The development charge gave rise to such widespread resentment and bitterness that the whole scheme eventually had to be abandoned under a storm of public protest.
While these events had been taking place there was, of course, always the Uthwatt Report which claimed to be a Report of experts. It was for a long time the gospel of betterment. The Committee proposed a scheme which recommended collecting 75 per cent. of the appreciation in land values. That scheme was rejected by the Coalition Government of the day, if my recollection is right, and no more was heard of it.
My Lords, how does this Bill seek to overcome the mistakes which brought to nothing all these previous attempts to collect betterment? It does two things, as I understand it. First, it fixes the betterment levy at 40 per cent., leaving 60 per cent. in the hands of the landowner. It is hoped that the landowner will be ready to bring his land to market for the sake of that 60 per cent. But that is not the end of the story. The 40 per cent. will grow, and before long it is expected that it will be 50 per cent. If the Commission ask, they might ultimately get 75 per cent., and in the end 100 per cent. If that happens I think that the scheme will suffer the same fate as did the scheme of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin.
The other proposal made for overcoming this difficulty is that the vendor is to be the party who pays the levy. Under the scheme of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, it was the purchaser or the developer. Will it make any difference that the vendor will pay this levy? In my judgment it will make no difference at all. The levy will rouse just the same resentment when it reaches these higher proportions as did the development charge; and it will discredit the whole scheme just as the 100 per cent. development charge discredited the earlier scheme. I do not think that proposal will make the least difference.
This Bill will fail ultimately in its purpose for the same reason that previous legislation has failed, because the collection of development value or betterment is not, in my judgment—based on a good many years of professional experience of these matters—a practical fiscal

1135
proposition. It may be possible to collect a reasonable tax, but to attempt to collect 40 per cent., or 50 per cent. or more of the development value is not a practical fiscal proposition. It will break down in this Bill as it has broken down in other Bills.
There is another reason, my Lords, why this Commission will fail in its purpose. Certain powers are to be given to the Commission, and to the Minister, which seem to me so unfair and unjust that when public opinion sees them in operation it will insist on their being withdrawn or modified. I do not desire to use exaggerated language in this matter, but the powers of compulsory acquisition after the second appointed day seem to me so unjust and so contrary to the principles upon which English law has always proceeded that I feel that in the end, when the public is more fully aware of these proposals than it is to-day, they will bring complete discredit on the whole scheme. I cannot recall any other Act of Parliament under which a person, whose property is taken compulsorily and against his wish, is refused the right to state his objections at some judicial or semi-judicial inquiry, or even the right to state them to an individual appointed by the Minister. That seems to me so inequitable that public opinion will sweep it away, as earlier schemes were swept away.
The unfortunate owner of land which is taken is not even given the right, for what it is worth, of having a compulsory order confirmed by the Minister. That may not be much protection, but at least it is something. He does not even enjoy that right. He has no right to any legal inquiry, although the Franks Committee reported not long ago that the right to a legal inquiry in these circumstances was an essential element in individual freedom. I beg the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to look again at this part of the Bill and not to listen too readily to the argument put forward this afternoon that the Land Acquisition Bill 1946 is a good precedent. It is not a good precedent; it is a bad precedent. Because we acted unjustly in the past is no reason why we should act unjustly at the present.
Recovery of betterment is not, of course, the only purpose of this Bill. The
1136
White Paper described the two main purposes of the Bill as being
"to secure that the right land is available at the right time for the implementation of national, regional and local plans"
and
"to secure that a substantial part of the development value created by the community returns to the community…"
How are the Commission to ensure that the right land is available at the right time? It means that they will be expected to purchase land in advance of requirements. We do not need a Commission to do that. Were local authorities authorised more readily to purchase land in anticipation of requirements, they would be quite ready and able to do so. But how far is this to go? The Commission will have to go a very long way from developed areas for the land which will be needed in order to ensure that the right land is available for the right purpose when the time comes.
Why was it considered necessary to bring this new authority into being? Most of the tasks assigned to them could equally well have been performed by existing authorities. The assessment of the levy could have been undertaken readily by the Inland Revenue Department. In fact, that Department will be making a very similar valuation for capital gains tax, if it is not doing so already. Local authorities could very easily have undertaken the compulsory purchase function which the Commission are to have. They already possess staff highly experienced in these matters. Yet it was decided to bring into being this great new engine of bureaucracy. Staff with special experience and qualifications will be needed, who are precisely the type which existing authorities have difficulty in finding. It is difficult to see why it was considered necessary, with the existing legislative machinery, to bring this new body into being.
We have had a dreadful Bill to examine. I do not think I can remember a Bill of greater complexity thorn this. And the complexity largely arises from the fact that this new body has to be fitted in with existing administrative bodies. With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I cannot accept his view that the complexity of the Bill is due to the complexity of the land laws. I do not think that it is so. It is due to the complexity

1137
of our administrative laws and the necessity which has faced the Government of fitting in this new administrative body with the existing administrative bodies and reconciling its position with their position and their powers. It is really because this Commission was not necessary that this Bill, which brings it into being, has become so complicated.
I believe that this Bill, like its predecessors, will fail in its purpose. Until a more modest view of the collection of betterment and development value is accepted, any measure of this sort is likely to fail in its purpose. I trust that as the Bill passes through the Committee stage we shall be able to carry out changes which will give this measure a better chance of success.
6.32 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, judging from what we have read about this Bill in the Press and magazines, from the reception it had in another place and in other quarters, and certainly from the many speeches that we have heard to-day, I can describe the Bill which is before your Lordships as a controversial measure. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, described it as the worst piece of legislation during the past fifteen years. Well, there may be other opinions than an assertion of that kind. The noble Lord, Lord Wade, said that the country will live to regret this Bill.
I should, if I may, like to add my own adjectives in describing this Bill. I must confess that since I decided to take part in this debate I have wrestled with this Bill, and I frankly say that I do not understand all its technicalities and involvements. But I have come to the conclusion that I can use these adjectives with the utmost of sincerity. I regard it as a useful Bill, as a necessary Bill, and as a long overdue Bill. I was rather fascinated by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, because of the criticisms that he had to make of the Bill, but there was no suggestion from the noble Lord of how to tackle the problem—and everybody admits that it is a problem—of the rising price of land. It may be that the noble Lord is reserving his suggestions for another stage of the Bill.
1138
I should not have taken part in this debate were it not to bring to the notice of your Lordships a particular matter connected with the exemptions that are described in Clause 56. But, with your Lordships' permission, I would start by making one or two observations about the land question and what should be done about it, especially for development purposes. I believe that this is exercising the minds of most people. It is not a new exercise, either. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, in his excellent explanation of the Bill, made one statement that attracted me. He said that previous attempts—and there have been many over a long period of time—had indicated that this land problem is intractable and that all efforts that had been made to solve it had been frustrated. Yes, on this question of land and its development there are many precedents.
During the last few years, particularly since 1959, when there was brought into being what is described as a free market in land, there has been a one-way traffic for the land speculators, whose profits have risen enormously—astronomically. My noble friend Lord Mitchison made some reference to the Lavender Hill business. May I quote another example, the circumstances of which have had wide publicity? In a Press statement, made perhaps twelve months ago now, a person stated that he had bought a 173-acre farm for £36,000 and recently had sold three of those acres for half the purchase price. He then said:
"I am sitting on a bonanza worth £1 million. It is incredible that such profits can be made."
He said further:
"I intend drawing the attention of the public to this."
Those were strong words, particularly from the source from which they came—not only strong words, but very courageous ones. They were issued to the Press by a Conservative ex-M.P.
Upon the point I propose to make now I do not think there is any argument. There is no difference of opinion about the fact that land for housing, for the making of new roads and for industrial development has not been easy to negotiate and acquire, and it is still difficult. As I see it, one of the purposes of this Bill is to minimise that difficulty. I have many friends in local authorities. What

1139
they say to me is this. When they are desirous of purchasing land for housing and other kinds of development, it is a nightmare to them. They describe it as "paying through the nose". And when negotiations have been completed and the land they require has come into their possession, they say that the epitaph they write is, "Ransom prices".
I have been doing a little research into recent figures of costs of sites for housing in the London area. The figure given by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is far in excess of what I found. I understand that in the last ten years there has been a 200 per cent. increase in the price of land in the London area and in the South East, where there is what I might describe as a miniature population explosion. I believe it to be the case (and this is in evidence as a result of researches that have been made), that while the impact has been greater in the London area, no region has escaped. The rise in the cost of building projects, and particularly in the provision of houses, whether by local authority or by developers for owner-occupation, is really staggering.
We have heard to-day, and rightly so, that there is a need for greater productivity. It is not an exaggeration to say that greater efficiency in the building industry is being nullified by increases in the price of land. No one would put up a counter argument to the fact that the need of land is growing; there can be no two opinions about it. If fertility rates continue as they have done for the past few years, a recent estimate has been made by an expert on population trends to the effect that by the end of this century there will be 72 million people living in Great Britain. On this basis, it is estimated that the population increase will mean the equivalent of building a new town of 70,000 people every seven years for the next forty years. If that gives a correct glimpse into the future, it certainly is a staggering thought. The only wise decision which we can take on the expert evidence we have is to plan the land in order to cope with these population trends. Procrastination in providing the first essential in building projects, which is land, would be not only inhuman and anti-social, but possibly in the not too far distant future dangerous as well.
The purpose of this Bill, as I see it, stripped of its technicalities and its legal
1140
jargon and as outlined in the more simple language of the White Paper, is admirable. It is, first, to secure that the right land is available at the right time for the implementation of national, regional and local planning. Secondly, it is to secure that a substantial part of development value created by the community returns to the community. That, I submit, is quite an ethical proposition. Further, it is to ensure that the burden of the cost of land for essential purposes shall be reduced. I submit that there cannot be any two arguments about the purpose embodied in this Bill, and no public-spirited person would quarrel with such a purpose. As has been explained in another place and in the speeches in this debate to-day, there may be differences as to the kind of machinery to be devised so that those purposes can be realised, and there may be differences as to the means of achieving the end, but this Bill, as I see it, is an attempt to translate into practical form, with the object of achieving, the twofold purpose of the White Paper.
During the thousand years of our history the land question has figured prominently. There have been conflicts, both physical and verbal. As the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, and the noble Lord, Lord Wade, have said, a little more than fifty years ago there was a great conflict between the two Houses of Parliament on the question of land; and this is still remembered. In discussing a Bill of this nature, people of my generation have long memories. I will not quote again the words of the late Lord Lloyd George of Dwyfor, better known in 1909 as David Lloyd George, but his words then (and they were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ilford) still have significance. Then in the early post-war years we had the Uthwatt Report which has been referred to, and the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, piloted through another place by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. But since 1951 there has been a whittling away and a return to a free market in land. It is an economic truth that cannot be disputed that, with a commodity in short supply, in the absence of a social purpose, prices soar. To the purpose of this Bill, as outlined in the White Paper, I give my wholehearted support, and for this reason: that it seeks to destroy, not wholly but substantially,

1141
the opportunity of acquiring wealth that has been created by the community.
I come now, briefly, to the question of the betterment levy. In principle I think it is very good. There is some doubt whether it should be 40, 45, 50 per cent., or even more. With the maximum of 50 per cent., as stated in the Bill, it still leaves half of the newly created value to the vendor. That, I submit, is not ungenerous. Now a word with regard to the application of the betterment levy. There are exemptions to this levy: local authorities, charities, and operational land or statutory undertakers. The point I wish to raise—and this is the main purpose of my remarks—is with regard to approved superannuation schemes. It will be well known to your Lordships that such schemes are exempt from taxation, but as the Bill stands at the moment they are to be subject to the betterment levy. Now there are many occupational schemes. They have grown in the past few years and they are likely to continue to grow. I have no knowledge of the amount of funds that have accumulated in these schemes which is invested in land, or the global figure arising through development values. My information is that perhaps one of the biggest single occupational schemes is one of the three run by the National Coal Board. I do not propose this evening to spell out the details of the investment by the trustees, but I am informed that the liability under this betterment levy is likely to he in excess of £100,000. Of course, the size of the pension is determined by the size of the contributions and the income from investments. When my noble friend comes to reply I would ask him to deal with this aspect of the Bill: why is it proposed to treat approved pension schemes for this purpose in a different way from the way in which they are treated for taxation?
May I, in conclusion, refer to one of the three schemes which is administered by the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers? It is the supplementary scheme connected with the Industrial Injuries Act. Some of your Lordships will recall that in Section 82 of the Act of 1946 there was an optional provision that if employers and employees could mutually agree on a supplementary scheme it would have the force of law. That was done by the
1142
N.C.B. and the National Union of Mineworkers. It is a unique scheme; it is the only one. No other industry has taken advantage of Section 82 of that Act. What is its purpose? It is to provide additional benefits when an accident occurs and incapacity arises there from. Sometimes the incapacity is short and on other occasions it is permanent. Sometimes the accident is fatal, and payments are made out of this supplementary scheme to the unfortunate widow and children who are left. But benefit is paid to all, irrespective of age, who have been injured and disabled by accident or industrial disease.
Whatever arguments there may be for not exempting approved pension schemes—and they may be varied—may I say to my noble friend the Minister that I see no reason why the supplementary industrial injuries scheme of the N.C.B. and the miners should not be exempted. The income is derived from weekly coppers to assist in time of adversity, and because the trustees have invested in land with potential development I do not see why a scheme of this kind should not be exempted. I trust that my noble friend will undertake to bring this particular aspect of the betterment levy to the attention of the Minister.
6.55 p.m.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: My Lords, I listened spellbound to the brilliant explanation of the Bill by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who made it seem for a moment more justified and less bad than one had thought. But with the enormous powers being sought by the Government to take any land, I feel that we require further assurance as to the extent to which they intend to carry out these powers of compulsion, and that they will be used only when and where land is actually needed or about to be needed for development.
Our principal objections to the Bill have been well expressed by other speakers here and elsewhere, and I should like for a few minutes to draw attention to other aspects which have to do more with agricultural land use, ownership and productivity. As an owner of land I declare an interest. I hope that I may be allowed to speak on this and submit that, as an owner managing

1143
land and actively concerned with the development of all forms of production from the land, my experience may help me to express apprehension about some of the disadvantages and possibly adverse effects of the Bill.
I find widespread agreement as to the difficulty of understanding the Bill, and I hope I shall be excused if my efforts to understand it show that I have not been entirely successful. Much of the argument to-day has been devoted to the valuable building land near the larger towns, and in the towns and cities. But I understand that all agricultural land is also affected, that the Land Commission will be very far reaching in their functions and controls and that everyone will be affected who owns building land or farm land, shops, offices, factories or houses of any description, and that almost every transaction to do with land or a cottage on the land may come before the Land Commission. This, unfortunately, must cause considerable additional work for those responsible for the management of land, work of a very unproductive nature, involving additional cost, loss of time and delays, instead of their concentrating on the work which they ought to be doing.
If I may turn to the financial aspects of land use, one of the principal jobs of an agricultural landowner is to finance all kinds of improvements which will increase productivity, and to provide new buildings and housing. This is a much needed function, especially when changes in agriculture and land use are so numerous and rapid. When land is sold for any purpose, the object is almost always to raise more capital needed for other land still under their charge. I refer to this now because while we see all the time much emphasis on industrial investment, hardly any mention is ever made of additional investment for land use. This has to come from somewhere and it can rarely come from the net revenue from the land. If there are more and more levies, and a tax such as the Land Commission levy, on top of a selective employment tax and the capital gains tax, there is less and less money available. Disincentives to personal enterprise are more visible than encouragement, and it seems that the Government are weakening rather than strengthening the ability to do what is necessary to fulfil the responsibilities towards the land and
1144
to secure the fullest contribution from it. I hope that I am wrong in any anxious forecast, but I submit that there should be care in the levying of charges on the proceeds of sales when needed and used for reinvestment in land in the same ownership.
It appears that the levy will fall with equal severity whether the land has increased in value because of the public or because of expenditure by the owner. I believe it has been suggested that minor transactions in land should be omitted—say those of under £5,000 or any agreed figure—with much saving in time, labour and cost. This seems to be a sensible suggestion from the point of view both of the benefit of the Land Commission and of the owners. Under the Bill many of the smallest things will lead to correspondence with the Commission and some action from them. And surely, on balance, it would be wiser to exclude them. In many of these small matters local authorities have ample powers and are quite well able to deal with them. In regard to cottages and, on a much larger scale, houses, I think the threat to house-owners and the appeal from them has already been before the Government, and it is to be hoped that more attention will be given to this.
May I also ask for a close examination in regard to the levy on the extraction of minerals, such as ironstone in the Midlands? I will say very little on this subject because it was well covered by the noble Lord, Lord Henley; and I should like to support him in what he has said. The working of the minerals in the Midlands presents unusual problems, and the taxation of these minerals is also peculiar in the way in which it is sometimes treated as capital and sometimes as income. If there is to be an additional Land Commission levy on top of the restoration levy, which in itself is additional to the usual taxation, it will produce a more curious situation in which, as I think the noble Lord pointed out, quite often there is likely to be a minus-result at the end rather than an equal or a plus-result.
Apart from this it will be realised that the value of the land after the minerals have been worked is less than it was with the minerals, and the surface of the land will have deteriorated by either a large or a small percentage, and

1145
there will be a great deal more work of restoration and improvement of the surface as a consequence of the mineral workings. I hope that the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill will look into this situation in regard to minerals. I think there is more time for it here than perhaps there was in another place, and I feel it is a case where it could be useful if the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor could have a few words with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the taxation of these minerals as it might be combined or otherwise with this levy.
In conclusion, may I just submit that there are points in the Bill where, certainly from the countryman's point of view, some simplification of procedure would be useful in order to avoid work of an unproductive nature and, possibly, to achieve more fairness in the assessment of the levy? In another place a very large number of Amendments were brought in by the Government at the last minute, and I hope that the same principle will be followed in this House.
7.7 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, it is one of the most interesting features of this debate so far that the objectives of the Bill appear to be common ground; it is on the application of the Bill that we seem to be so far apart. Whatever may be the rights and wrongs of the Land Commission, one thing, in my opinion, is quite certain, and that is that the bulwark of democracy, the local authorities, will surely sense that the setting up of a central Government machine to carry out work that local authorities already have powers to do must surely be a direct threat to their powers and responsibilities. It must surely seem to them that the desire of the Government to have the Land Commission is either a reflection that the local authorities have failed in their powers to provide the right land at the right time or that the central Government simply wish to gain more control over their affairs. To the outsider the problem is perhaps simpler: he sees the Land Commission as no more than a thinly disguised tool for land nationalisation. It is a word which I notice the Government have so far successfully avoided.
1146
On reading through all the proceedings on this Bill in another place I have tried to visualise, as I am sure many of your Lordships will have done, how the honeymoon will work between the Land Commission and the local authorities. I believe that it will be brief, with immediate separation and divorce proceedings following. No doubt the Land Commission will approach the local authorities and say to them, "You give up your powers of compulsory purchase; we will look after the purchase of any land you require in your area, for we have two great advantages. We have our own finance—unlike yourselves, for you have to go to loan sanction, with consequent great delays—and we also have this advance weapon of compulsory purchase. Then, having bought the land, we are quite prepared to sell it to you at a considerably reduced price for your purposes."
I am sure this seems all too good to the local authorities, and they are bound to wonder where the catch comes. As I see it, the catch is that they will be left to clear up the mess of some clumsy compulsory purchase order which has been made in their area. And they are, of course, democratically elected bodies. Secondly, after the appointed day, they will suddenly find that the Land Commission change their character and are able to gain control of the land throughout the local authority's area without any consent or discussion with the local authority.
The main objectives of this Bill are, as I understand it, first to provide a supply of land, and, secondly, to reduce the cost of land. The supply of land for development is governed by the speed and efficiency of the planning machinery, and, as we all know, this machinery is so overloaded at the present time that it is almost grinding to a halt. The Land Commission, sadly, will provide no planning powers itself to assist the planning machinery, and, what is perhaps more disheartening, it will cause a further congestion by insisting that all developers are to submit applications to the Land Commission, I believe the period is something like six weeks before any development can begin.
In the past, the Government have on many occasions accused owners of land

1147
of being racketeers in hoarding vast stocks of development land, and, as is usual with such accusations of this Government, they have never once on any single occasion produced any evidence to support this charge. I thought it might be of interest to the House to refer tonight to a brief from the professional bodies, who clearly state that in their view there is no evidence of such land racketeering on any scale. Perhaps the noble Lord could comment at the end of the debate as to what evidence he has of this accusation, and if he has no evidence I suggest he should retract it.
As to the objective of reducing the cost of land, it is clear that the Land Commission can in the public sector subsidise the resale of building land to local authorities. It would appear to me that unless similar subsidies are granted for the private sector the cost of land can never be reduced, and I should like to ask the noble Lord to say, when he comes to reply, how the Land Commission will be instructed to attend to the 60 per cent. private sector market. Do they intend to subsidise it in any way?
Turning to the levy very briefly, I am sure everyone is agreed that this is the most complicated land tax that has yet been devised, and in the view of the professional bodies I am sure it is very much hoped that the next stage of this Bill an Amendment will allow the professional fees charged to those affected by the levy either to be charged to the base value of the property or to be refunded by the Land Commission. The further feature of the levy which appears inequitable is the case of easements and tenancies. As I understand it, the levy will be charged as a capital sum on any new easement or new tenancy, whether or not the owner has yet received sufficient payment to pay the levy.
I turn to the famous Clause 8. One of the faults of the present Government, if I may say so, is that they seem to have an obsession for seeking temporary emergency powers which normally would never be needed except in war time. Clause 8 is no exception to this. This Clause gets perhaps as close to allowing the State to take away a citizen's property without any appeal or protection as it can possibly get. During the whole
1148
of the Second Reading in another place and during the whole of the remaining stages of the Bill there never once did the Government produce any evidence why they had to take these powers; and this, I believe, is the crux of the point. Again I have taken advice from outside, and everyone is concerned to know why the Government wish to take these powers at the present time.
Turning to Clause 9, I here again feel that hardship will be caused unless an Amendment is made. As I understand it, a compulsory purchase order will be allowed to be served on a householder and completion of the purchase can be up to three years from the date of the compulsory purchase order. This places the dead hand of planning on that property, and should the owner during that period of three years wish to sell he finds his property virtually frozen. I very much hope that some deviation of the system will come into this clause, so that at least the owner may serve on the Land Commission a notice either to purchase the property or to release it from the compulsory purchase order.
Finally, to sum up, the Land Commission in my opinion will be carrying out only one useful purpose, namely, the collection of the levy, and, as has already been stated on many occasions to-day, that could very easily be collected by the Inland Revenue. The effect of the Land Commission over the past year has acted virtually as a freeze on the building programme and has reduced its output to a staggeringly low figure. There is no developer in this country who can honestly say with confidence at the present time what the future holds for him. No one knows how much power the Land Commission intend to use. We can only wait and see, and while we wait and see production sinks lower and lower. The only heartening news I found during proceedings in another place was that when the Party I support returns to power, which I hope will be very shortly, it intends to cast this great bureaucratic, unnecessary machine away.
7.17 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, there can be few Bills in recent years which have received a more frigid reception in Parliament than the measure we are discussing now. Indeed, as I witnessed

1149
the closing stages of the Third Reading in another place the look on the faces of the half-dozen supporters of the Government resembled the closing scenes of a tragic Wagnerian opera. Almost the closing words used by the Government spokesman at the end of the Third Reading of the Bill were some words written by John Stuart Mill:
"No man made the land. It is the original inheritance of the whole species."
I do not think that anyone would deny the logic of that remark. But I cannot quite see how that remark can be justified in relation to the present Bill, because the Commission, as has been pointed out, are being enabled to purchase land by compulsion, without giving any reason for it. So I cannot see how John Stuart Mill's words, moving as they are in the ears of some, can possibly apply to this Bill.
I should like to put one specific question regarding Scotland. How does the newly constituted Highlands Development Board fit in with these proposals? Because it seems to me very unfair if a newly constituted Government Board, set up at big expense and a Board which is undoubtedly doing good work, is going to have its powers emasculated by this vast Land Commission. I should like the Government to give some thought to this question, because I am certain that the people in the Highlands of Scotland particularly will be very anxious to know what is taking place here.
While on the subject of Scotland, I should like to quote briefly from an article in a recent edition of the Perth-shire Advertiser in which the Labour Party correspondent tries to justify this Bill. He says in one passage:
"Shorn of technicalities, the purpose of this Bill is easily understood."
That would be true if the Bill had anything other than technicalities in it. He goes on to say:
"The Tories fear that implementation will lead to widespread nationalisation of land, and they are quite right in the case of building land. That is what the Bill is about."
In another place the Government tried their best to convince the people that this was not nationalisation of land. One wonders just who is right, the Government or the gentleman from the Perth-shire Advertiser. But I think that the
1150
electorate in this country may well draw their own conclusions.
I should like to turn for a moment to the building industry, which has been hard hit by the selective employment tax and by other fiscal measures which have been put on it. The terms of this Bill are going to be additional hardships particularly on the small builder who never quite knows how and when he is going to get planning permission, and who may not know for some time what he is expected to be building, because, as has been said earlier, under this Bill no specific reason need be given for compulsory purchase. I believe that this is a bad thing for the country, since our building industry is one of our most important attributes.
So far as the complexity of this Bill is concerned, I would agree to some extent with the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, that any planning Bill is bound to be complex. I accept that, but on one condition—namely, that the Bill in question can be proved workable. But I cannot, with the best will in the world, see that this Bill in its present state can really be workable. It is going to be costly to administer. Some 2,000 extra staff are said to be needed. In view of the work and the many aspects of the work which they will have to carry out, I think that is an optimistic estimate.
However, I think the most grievous harm that this Bill does is to give a nasty "black eye" to those who serve in local government. I think that all Parties have rightly paid tribute over the years to the good work done by local councillors, who have been unpaid and have given a good deal of their time. That applies to local councillors of all Parties, whether or not we on these Benches may agree with their views. This Bill is going to deprive them of considerable powers. The chairmen of planning committees on local councils—I have several friends who hold these posts—work long hours going into the whys and wherefors of these matters. They work sensibly, often in relation with county councils. Are the Government prepared categorically to say that local authorities will not by this Bill be divested of many of their powers, particularly in planning matters? There are in local government in this country a number of people, of all Parties

1151
and of none, who I am sure are greatly worried about this.
May I turn for a moment to a strange part of this Bill, to Schedule 2, paragraph 2(2)(b), which refers to compulsory purchase. Here I quote:
"where he is the owner, lessee or occupier of land which appears to the Commission to be separately occupied, the notice is addressed to 'the owner and the occupier' of the land (describing it) and is either delivered to some person on the land or"—
this is the vital piece—
"if there is no person on the land to whom it can be delivered, is affixed to some conspicuous object on the land."
I do not want to seem facetious, but does this mean that if a plot in Kent is going to be compulsorily purchased, a notice can be affixed to some raspberry cane on some piece of the land if the person concerned cannot be found? I think this is important, because compulsory purchase is a vital thing for that person, and it seems most unfair that he should be communicated with in this way.
I do not wish to go any further into this Bill now, but I hope that between now and the next stage the Government will look more closely into Clause 8, because the provisions are not only complicated, but in many ways are most unjust. I think all Parties are concerned to get rid of the really unscrupulous land speculator—of that there is no doubt; but there is no evidence that this Bill will either bring down the price of land or make more land available for building.
7.28 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I view this Bill with as much distaste as do those of my noble friends who have already spoken in this debate, and I do not relish the task of having to make the final speech on Second Reading from this side of the House. Of course I recognise, as we all do, that the Government claim that the electorate gave them a mandate to establish a Land Commission. But in fact the electors were led up the garden, because they were given to understand that a Land Commission was essential for the purpose of taking profiteering out of land, and furthermore, that the activities of a Land Commission would result in a lower cost of housing in the country. Neither of those propositions
1152
is even remotely true. So, in fact, the electors were "sold a pup" at the time of the General Election, and furthermore a pup that is going to grow up into an exceedingly savage and dangerous animal.
It is no exaggeration on my part to say that this Bill is the only piece of legislation that I can recall in fifteen years in Parliament which can accurately be described as tyrannical. Indeed, some of its provisions are potentially so oppressive and unjust that it is scarcely possible to comment upon them without recourse to language more immoderate than your Lordships would be likely to find acceptable.
Usually, however much one criticises a Bill—and we do criticise Bills in this House; that is what we are here for—one can find in it some good points which one can mention, and one always tries to do so. But, try as I have, I have not been able to find one single redeeming feature in this Bill. One cannot even say that the Bill is lucid and clear, as my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor pointed out. The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, seemed to think that it is a virtue in the Bill that the Explanatory Memorandum is what he called more lively than the Bill itself. I cannot remember any Bill in which that was not true, so it does not seem to get one very far. Those, then, are the reasons why I do not particularly relish having to make this speech now. But, fortunately for me, my noble friends who have spoken from this side of the House have put the case against the Bill with such masterly precision, and indeed comprehension, that perhaps it will be sufficient if I merely attempt to summarise our objections to the Bill and our forebodings about it.
We do not, of course, quarrel in principle with the ostensible objectives of the Bill as described in the White Paper of September last year. Of course it is desirable that the right land should be available at the right time for the implementation of national, regional and local plans. But it appears to be the contention of the Government (it is implicit in the White Paper as well as in the Bill, and it was implicit in the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor this afternoon) that such a state of affairs has not obtained in the past, does not obtain now, and will not obtain in

1153
the future unless the Land Commission are appointed. That is a proposition which I, for one, am not prepared to accept.
As I understand it—and the speech of the noble and learned Lord Chancellor this afternoon bore this out—the Government base that contention on two arguments. The first is that the existing authorities—that is to say, the local authorities, the New Town corporations, various Government Departments and other official organisations—either do not at present possess adequate powers of compulsory purchase or, if they do possess them, do not exercise them adequately. But where is the evidence that that is so? I am not aware that the Government have at any stage in the proceedings on this Bill offered any evidence to that effect. We did not get any from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. All we get is a very general assertion that that is so.
Supposing the Government are right and that is so, it would follow that, if we had had a Land Commission fulfilling their activities for the last ten years or so, we should to-day in this country possess more motorways than we possess, more towns than we possess, more National Parks, more hydro-electric schemes, and so on. But how can anyone believe a proposition quite so fantastic as that? Then, again, if the Government were right about this it would follow that more houses would have been built in this country in recent years if we had had a Land Commission. But surely nobody, apart from Mr. Willey, can believe that one either.
Certainly, so far as I can recollect, no speaker made that claim, from either side of the House, when at the end of July, at the instance of my noble friend Lord Hawke, your Lordships' House conducted an inquest into the failure of the Government's housing programme. Mr. Willey may believe that in recent years more houses would have been built if we had had a Land Commission, but it would not seem that Mr. Crossman believes it. Mr.Crossman, when he was still Minister of Housing and Local Government, said in the other place on April 28 this year:
"The only limiting factor is the willingness of my right honourable friend the Chancellor
1154
of the Exchequer to make money available. If we were allowed more money we could achieve records in local authority building year by year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 727, col. 983; 28/4/66.]
There is nothing there about the shortage of land having anything to do with the building of more houses. It is for those reasons that I personally reject the unproved argument that the existing authorities either cannot or do not exercise adequately their powers of compulsory purchase.
The Government's second argument in support of the contention which I am discussing is that desirable development is frustrated by owners' withholding land from the market in the hope of higher prices. Of course there are people who withhold land from the market, but not for profit. They are people who want to protect their own amenities, people who have acquired a garden and perhaps a field or two around their house in order to give them an open view and so that they may enjoy a degree of privacy. And why not? It is not a crime in this country, or even a sin, to seek to protect one's own amenities. If the private individual does not protect his own amenities for himself, no one else is going to do so. Town and country planning exists, as we know, to protect public amenities: it does not exist to protect private amenities. It is a sad thing if people in this country are now to be deemed to be unpatriotic citizens merely because they decline to develop land which a local planning authority has graciously said they may develop.
As to the withholding of land in the expectation of getting a higher price, the Government know perfectly well, as my noble friend Lord Kinnoull pointed out, that the professional bodies have gone on record as saying that there is no evidence of large-scale withholding by landowners of land for development. It does not strike me as being very surprising if these bodies are right. I do not know how many speculators in land there are in the country, or the scale on which they indulge in it. My noble friend Lord Gage said he was not aware of ever having come across a land speculator. However that may be, there are obviously some people who speculate in land. The noble Lord opposite obviously thinks there are more than a few. I should have thought that a speculator in land,

1155
like a speculator in any investment, normally aims to get a quick return—a quick profit. The ordinary owner of land who is not a speculator sells when he is offered a price which is such that, on balance, it is more advantageous for him to sell than not to sell. For example, a farmer will sell land if the price will more than compensate him for the loss of his income resulting from the sale. That is not withholding land for the sake of getting a higher price; it is just plain common sense.
In the instances, be they many or be they few—and I should have thought that probably they were few—in which land is withheld from the market for no good reason, then the answer lies in compulsory purchase, or in the threat of it, by one of the existing authorities with powers of compulsory acquisition. One does not need to have a new body to do it for them. The proof of this is to be found in the case, so dear to the heart of Mr. Willey, which he quotes so often, of what happened not long ago in Hertfordshire. So it seems to me that this contention of Her Majesty's Government, that a Land Commission is needed for the purpose of securing that the right land is available at the right time, will not stand up to rational examination.
As to the Government's second objective as set out in the White Paper, I consider that it is right now to make yet another attempt to recover betterment, but not by the method proposed in this Bill. As so many of my noble friends have said this afternoon, betterment ought to be taxed like any other capital gain; and, indeed, as increases in existing use value of land are already taxed and will continue to be taxed. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, seemed to think that a disadvantage of taxing betterment like any other capital gain would be that it might be possible to set off losses against gains in other directions. If that were so and it were a disadvantage, it would not be very difficult to put that right in the appropriate section of the Finance Bill.
But, to my mind, and trying to look at this from the Government's point of view, it is so silly of them not to realise the point I am trying to make, instead of tying themselves in knots trying to prove what, to me, is the nonsensical proposition: that the Land Commission and the
1156
levy are like Tweedledum and Tweedledee; that they must go together. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor this afternoon tried to argue this, and so did the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, and they were both in their respective way very ingenious in trying to do it, but at the end of the day I am afraid I am no more convinced than before they made those distinguished speeches. It cannot be in the Government's interest to create unnecessary resentment, but this is precisely what they are doing in this Bill by singling out landowners as pariahs, as outcasts, as people who must be treated differently and taxed differently from those who make equally legitimate capital gains in other ways.
It seems to me that the Government are about to make exactly the same mistake as was made in the 1947 Act of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, which so many people have mentioned this afternoon. That Act was perfectly logical in its conception, but what was wrong about it was its psychology. It failed partly because under it purchasers were required to pay the development charge at the 100 per cent. rate, but also partly because owners, being human beings, just were not prepared to sell their land at existing use value. So I am prepared now to predict that people, being human, will not willingly accept from the Land Commission less than the full market price for their land; in other words, they will object to the Commission's deducting the levy from the price which the Commission will pay when sales are made. On the other hand, I fully share the view, which I believe to be held by the professional bodies, that if betterment were taxed as capital gain, like any other capital gain, then there would not be resentment on the part of those who had to pay it, and land would not be held off the market as I believe it will be if we have the levy in this form.
I venture now to make another prediction, and that is that if the Land Commission or the Government try to impose crownhold tenure to any significant extent, then that attempt will not succeed. Quite obviously, crownhold is not going to appeal to the industrialist or to the shopkeeper, because development will be levied at the 100 per cent. rate instead of at the 40 per cent. rate which is proposed in the Bill for freeholders and

1157
leaseholders. Nor will crownhold, even concessionary crownhold, in my judgment be likely to appeal to the householder, for the simple human reason that, on account of the restrictions which are a necessary part of crownhold, the crown-holder will be an inferior citizen as compared with a freeholder and a leaseholder. Therefore it seems to me that the more the Government or the Commission try to impose crownhold tenure—and I do not know to what extent they intend to do so—the more they will simply force up the price of freehold land and, therefore, the cost of housing.
This brings me to the Government's third ostensible objective, which is to secure that the burden of the cost of land for essential purposes is reduced. As my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor and others have said, there is nothing whatever in this Bill to secure that, except the provision for concessionary crownhold for housing. But even this is really no more than an intention on the part of the Government that in future some housing will be cheaper than other housing, which is not at all the same thing as saying that in future houses will be cheaper than they are to-day. In fact, as so many of your Lordships have pointed out, all new houses will become dearer as a result of this Bill, because owners are going to pass on as much of the levy as they can to those to whom they sell. In addition, as I have just said, if an attempt is made to enforce crownhold tenure that also will have the effect of putting up the price of freehold land and the cost of freehold housing.
My Lords, I have been discussing up to now the Government's—shall I say?—overt reasons for this Bill. But one finds them so unconvincing that one is driven to look to see whether there are, in fact, any covert reasons. And one does not have to look much further than the speech which Mr. Willey made in the other place on January 31, when he was introducing the original Bill. It is quite obvious from Mr. Willey's lengthy opening remarks that the real object of this Bill is to deliver a mortal blow at landowning and landowners. But it is not the "big boys" who are going to be hurt by this: if anyone is going to be hurt, it will be the humbler folk. It will be
1158
people like the smallholders who grow strawberries between Southampton and Portsmouth, in my old constituency; small tradesmen who own their own shops; the retired couple who own their own home and a bit of land behind, between the house and the railway. They are the people who are going to be hurt, if anyone is going to be hurt, by this Bill.
Do not let anyone be lulled into a state of false security by the provisions in the Bill to secure that the Commission will not be able to acquire land compulsorily unless there has first been a planning decision. The Land Commission will be able to apply to a local authority for a planning decision in the same way as anybody else. My noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor has recently moved from Hampstead to Wiltshire. I could ask his local planning authority for permission to develop his kitchen garden. For that matter, I could ask for permission to develop the Prime Minister's garden in the Scilly Isles, though if I were foolish enough or loutish enough to try to do any such thing I have no doubt at all that the application would be refused.
However, it would be a very different story if the Land Commission made such an application. I do not say that they would, but if the Land Commission made application for such planning permission they would be in a very strong position to bring pressure to bear upon local authorities, or to horse-trade with them. As I understand the Bill, it will be quite possible for the Commission to say to a planning authority: "If you will grant planning permission for a particular stretch of land here to be developed, then we in return will acquire for you that stretch of land over there which you want for your housing programme, and, what is more, we will acquire it under the special procedure of compulsory purchase, which you yourselves cannot use, and thereby save you both time and expense".
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Kinnoull pointed out, this is a Bill to nationalise the land—not outright, of course, but gradually over the years. Your Lordships do not have to take that from me. This is the view of the Prime Minister himself. After all, the Prime

1159
Minister said during the General Election, on March 17 of this year, at Chiswick:
"The Bill"—
that is, this Bill—
"will take urban building land on which planning permission has been granted into public ownership".
Public ownership is the same thing as nationalisation. No, my Lords, the powers are in this Bill, and these powers will be exercised not by a body responsible to the electorate: they will be exercised by nine men appointed by the Minister—and, so far as I can make out, they will be no more answerable to Parliament or to the public for their day-to-day activities than the National Coal Board, British Railways or any other of the nationalised industries. What is more, again so far as I can make out, even the Minister or the Ministers will be answerable to Parliament for the activities of the Land Commission only in so far as the Minister or Ministers have given directions to the Commission or authorised compulsory purchase orders.
My noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor pointed out very clearly in his speech the more obnoxious features of the Bill, and I am not going to repeat them at this time of night, but I hope that the public at large will begin to realise that these obnoxious features are in the Bill. I go further than that and say that I am of the opinion that if the public had known that these features were going to be in the Bill it would not have given the Government the mandate which they claim. The Bill may well fail in its purpose for the same sort of human reasons that Lord Silkin's Act of 1947 failed. It may fail, as my noble friend Lord Ilford suggested, because people will not be prepared to pay the levy and feel resentment about it. Certainly, if owners decline to treat voluntarily with the Land Commission and so force them in every case to resort to compulsory purchase, then assuredly the machinery of the Commission will break down—and perhaps, my Lords, that is the best thing that could happen.
7.54 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, while it is fresh
1160
in my mind, perhaps I may take up the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, about apparent discrepancies between the Labour Party Manifesto, or how it might be understood, and the text of the Bill presently before your Lordships. I would remind your Lordships that the Bill was introduced before the Election, so everybody had a good opportunity to know what was in it.
Now let me take up some points that have been made in the debate. I apologise in advance to your Lordships if I am a little longer than is sometimes the case at the end of such a debate, but the points that have been made are many, contentious and, some of them, important. The burden of the complaint by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, about the Bill was that it was unduly complicated. That was his first complaint. He soon conceded the principle of a betterment levy, but complained that the way we proposed to go about it was too complex. The first detailed complaint he made about the Bill was—and I quote him:
"It is quite fallacious to suggest you can equitably deal with this difficult matter by imposing a standard charge of 40 per cent."
I assume, therefore, that he would be in favour of a fluctuating or graduated charge in different circumstances, and I wonder what increase in the staff that we envisage he would expect that to entail. Would it be 2,000, 3,000, 4,000 or 5,000?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, if I may deal with that point, I was countering the argument which had been used by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, that where there was an element of betterment deriving from the actions of the community that could be equitably dealt with by a flat rate charge. In my speech I pointed out that, though there might well be an element of community betterment, it might range from 1 per cent. to 99 per cent., and it could not be argued that it was equitable to offset that by a flat rate levy at any fixed figure.
LORD KENNET: I imagine it would still take quite a lot of extra staff to sort it out. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and many other noble Lords, asked: Why not adapt the capital gains tax to fulfil the purpose of this

1161
Bill? This is a substantial point, and obviously it was not overlooked. We think we had good reasons for not adopting it—in fact we know we had—and I will give the House three of them. For one thing, the capital gains tax does not touch any value which notionally existed at or before April 6, 1965. The betterment levy, on the other hand, will apply to all development value actually realised, even though it may be argued that it had accrued over a number of years in the past, before that Budget date.
Another reason is that the capital gains tax does not bite on gains made from the sale of business property in so far as they are reinvested in similar property. Thus a farmer who sells 100 acres of land worth £20,000 as such for £100,000—thus realising £80,000 development value—can avoid paying capital gains tax if he invests the money, the £80,000, in buying a 500-acre farm. The levy will catch this, and it is the Government's purpose to catch it. Thirdly, an owner-occupier with a house and, say, three-quarters of an acre of garden, worth, as a house, £10,000, could sell the whole for, say, £20,000 to a builder who would erect several houses in the garden. Under capital gains tax, the unearned development value of £10,000 would escape tax, but the levy, as the Government design it, would catch such unearned value.
I think it is clear that the capital gains tax is one sort of animal and that the proposed betterment levy is another. The capital gains tax is leviable only on values created since April, 1965, and we plan to revise it next year so that it will bite only on increments of existing-use value. The betterment levy, on the other hand, will bite on increments in change-of-use value—that is, development value—and also increments which will go back before April last year.
Then the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, asked: Can the Land Commission buy for one alleged purpose and use the land for another? The answer is that in the second stage of the Bill, after the introduction of the second stage, there are provisions for a change of purpose in land after its acquisition. The provisions are complicated, but quite comprehensible. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, used for this point
1162
the analogy of husband and wife. He said, "Suppose a wife said to her husband, 'Instead of the usual £15-a-week housekeeping money this week, I would rather you gave me £50', and suppose she then refused to explain to him why." Or let us say that she said to him, "I want £50 in order to buy a gramophone", and then went straight out and spent it on liquor—that is, she used it for another purpose than the alleged use. I think we all know what the individual citizen would do if this sort of thing continued. He would divorce his wife; and to the extent that a governing Party may be regarded as the wife of the electorate, I think it is perfectly clear that if this sort of thing continued the electorate would divorce the Government at the next Election. One need not fear that the Land Commission which we are setting up are going deliberately to trick everybody. For what ends? Why should they? I do not see it myself at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, alleged that the Land Commission would be able to sell at any price they liked. Under the crownhold provisions, of course that is not true. The Land Commission can only sell at a concessionary price, a concessionary price being a lower price than the market price. This is the reason why the Commission are there. The noble Lord asked also very specifically, and he repeated it: Is it true to say that, after the introduction of the second stage, anyone who tries to improve his property will lay himself open to having it taken from him? In the ordinary sense of the words, No. The Land Commission do not touch improvements, as we normally use the word, as they would not qualify under the Land Commission Bill as material development; they would not be big enough to attract any of the provisions of the Bill. If, on the other hand, he meant, "Would anybody who developed his own property risk having it taken from him?" my answer is, No, he would not. The purpose of the whole Bill is to encourage development, to render development more orderly and to tax unearned values attached to development. It is not to take land and property away from those who develop it. Far from it.
The noble Lord also asked me whether I could define the relation between the

1163
Land Commission and planning control. He asked whether the Land Commission would have to apply for planning permission. The answer is, Yes, like anyone else they will have to apply.
I come now to Clause 8 which is a very big issue. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, pointed out that in certain circumstances a landowner will have no right to a hearing. This is true. But before we take up a position on this let us go through the stages. First of all, the Government hope that the landowner will develop his own land in accordance with the public interest. If he does not want to do that, we hope he will sell his land to someone who will develop it in the public interest, when he will be taxed on the development value. If he does not want to do that, he can sell to a local authority by agreement; if he does not want to do that, he can sell it to the Land Commission by agreement, if the Land Commission are operating in that part of the world for that purpose. If he does not want to do that, then a local authority can exercise its compulsory purchase powers over him. If for some reason or other the local authority is not in a position to do that, or feels that it would not be well advised to do so, the Land Commission may exercise their compulsory purchase powers against him.
In normal circumstances, there will be a hearing in accordance with the familiar drill at present with the local authorities. But we are now at about the seventh or eighth hoop or stage. In abnormal circumstances it is true to say that the Minister will have power to institute what we call the speedy procedure in certain parts of the country for a certain time and for certain types of land only. But here is a landowner who has come through all those hoops without agreeing to the development of his land in the public interest; what sort of person is he going to be? These powers have been taken with the idea in mind of having a procedure to use in the infinitely remote case, I hope—and I hope as fervently as any noble Lord that it will not arise—of an organised resistance to the operation of the Land Commission. It could be—I can just imagine it, a horrible idea—that all the landowners in a given part of the country of a certain
1164
type and at a certain time would club together, and with their joint resources would hire a skilful lawyer to defeat the operation of this Bill. It is because there is that possibility that the Government felt it would not be responsible to omit this extreme provision.
The noble Lord made an analogy between the landowner in this case who gets no hearing—although let us not forget that he may make written representations and the Minister must consider them—and a murderer who does not get a hearing in court. I think it is a false analogy. In criminal proceedings it is necessary to determine the facts where they are in dispute, and where one of the parties is presumably lying about them. The appearance of the accused in court is thus necessary in order to enable his veracity to be assessed. It is not so in compulsory purchase. In general, the facts are not in dispute. It is just that the seller simply does not want to sell. The issue is therefore solely whether the public interest must prevail over the private interest of the recalcitrant owner, and this according to all our historical constitutional theory is a matter for decision by the Minister.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, the prior question is: What is the public interest?
LORD KENNET: In complicated matters of this sort the public interest is a question that is usually decided by Parliament. I revert to the husband and wife analogy. If the wife—the Government in my analogy—is operating the Bill in a way which is unpopular with the husband, she will be divorced.
VISCOUNT DAVENTRY: My Lords, the noble Lord has had rather an unfortunate experience.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I do not believe that either the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, nor I have had that experience. The noble Lord asked why it was necessary to include provisions for waiting for six years for the assessment of the levy. Many noble Lords have criticised the Government for not leaving all this to the Inland Revenue. But six years is the standard period in Inland Revenue matters for the assessment of difficult tax issues and we have carried it into this Bill.

1165
The noble Lord also asked whether we could not exempt small transactions. There are two provisions in the Bill which have that effect. One is the fact that development value up to 10 per cent. is not charged—which accounts for many of the complications which make the Schedules to this Bill look rather absurd. For example, whenever you come across "eleven-tenths" it is the de minimus exemption of 10 per cent. on development value. The other is the rather permissive definition of development which is not material. "Material development" must be something quite real. For a very small change in value, if very small work is carried out, this can escape either under the 10 per cent. provision or under the "immaterial development" provision. The noble Lord asked about the payment of levy in advance in connection with bank loans. If he agrees, I should like to take this point at the Committee stage. I would treat similarly the other point about the exemption of charities.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, is not here. I will not weary the House with the answers I have prepared to his questions. My noble friend Lord Silkin spoke—and I was delighted with the historical proportion into which his speech put our whole debate to-day. The noble Viscount, Lord Gage, raised the interesting matter on which we had been in correspondence about the relevant operations of the Land Commission, the local authority and others on comprehensive redevelopment. I could give an answer now, but it is rather a lengthy matter. I wonder whether he, too, would be prepared to leave this over until the Committee stage. I am sure he could find a clause on which to take this point, which is a very interesting one.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, supported to a certain extent by the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, raised the question of minerals under the Bill. There have been, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, discussions with the Country Landowners' Association about the effect of the Bill on the owners of mineral-bearing land.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I am surprised to hear the noble Lord say that, because I have been in the closest touch on this with the C.L.A. I have not heard of these discussions.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am informed that the discussions have taken place. The value of minerals can be realised only where planning permission has been granted by a planning decision. The value depends on the demand by the community, and the distinction between sand and gravel and other minerals is, in the opinion of the Government, unreal for the purposes of this Bill. The minerals committee of the Confederation of British Industry do not consider that powers of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966, to which the noble Lord referred, which is a consolidation of old powers and contains nothing new, go far enough. In particular this Act does little to help the sand and gravel workings—a matter which has an obvious importance in the public interest if we are to get the amount that we need of development and public building done in the rest of the century. The Land Commission's powers to acquire such land may, we in the Government believe, be very important and useful. The noble Lord also raised the question of regulations. These are not yet available.
I was about to pay a compliment to Henry George, the common inspiration of the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, and myself, but I see that the noble Lord is no longer in his place. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, who is present, spoke about the effect of this Bill on land owned by pension schemes. This is a difficult matter. The land owned by such pension schemes is owned as an investment, and if one is to legislate at all to tax land held as an investment, one cannot distinguish between the purposes of one investment holder and another. To do so would lead one into the most difficult complications. I think, therefore, that land held in this manner will have to stand the 40 per cent. tax like other land held by other investors. To have it otherwise would give rise to unworkable complications.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, raised a point about agricultural landowners who sold land at a profit for development but sank the profit in agriculture. I am afraid that the effect of the Bill will be that from now on they will have to make do with 60 per cent. profit. The noble Earl. Lord Kinnoull, asked whether local authorities were not good enough for this

1167
purpose. Of course, my Lords, many local authorities are; but others, as I am sure the noble Earl will admit, are too small to be able to cause the development we need to be brought about without unacceptable delays. The point has been made in this debate, and on other occasions, that one finds desirable development straddling the area of two local authorities. Much was said about this in the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
The noble Earl raised several other points. The need for six weeks' notice to the Land Commission before development starts was removed on Report stage in the Commons. The period of three years after compulsory purchase, or for which land could be acquired, is common to all compulsory purchase powers of local authorities at present, and I know of no evidence that the prospect of a Land Commission has in fact caused any of the present difficulties in the building industry. On the contrary, it has provided every possible incentive to builders to get on with development, if only they understand it aright. Lastly, the noble Earl asked me to rectify an accusation. I was not quite clear what the accusation was or who was alleged to have made it; or when, and in what terms.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, the accusation was simply that the Government kept on talking about land racketeers who are hoarding these vast tracks of development land, and professional bodies say that they have no evidence of it.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I have never made any such accusation, and cannot, of course, retract other men's words.
The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, asked whether the Government were ready to say that local authorities would not be divested of planning powers by this Bill. The Government are indeed ready to say that. They will not be.
The noble Lord, Lord Newton, made a spirited concluding speech. It seemed to me that many of his arguments, in the first part of his speech at least, were directed at all kinds of compulsory purchase, or were as valid against compulsory purchase as it now exists as
1168
against compulsory purchase under this Bill; and also against all possible imaginable forms in which a betterment levy might be brought into operation.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I find it hard to believe I gave the impression that I was against any conceivable form of compulsory purchase. Far from it. I went out of my way to say that the threat of compulsory purchase, or actual compulsory purchase, was the way to deal with cases where land is required for the market.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, that is precisely what we plan to do rather more efficiently under the present Bill.
Let me now answer, if I may, in general the criticism which has been levelled at the Commission from noble Lords opposite, the criticism that it is too strong a tiger; that it is a monstrous piece of State capitalism, or creeping nationalisation, which will cow all unoffending little private capitalists into abject inertia so that nothing will ever be built again; or will be built only at the price of gaols overflowing with bewildered owner-occupiers, smallholders and offending nurserymen. All this is good clean fun in the two-Party tradition. It is the kind of opposition that is naturally, and I would say myself quite properly, put up by noble Lords opposite to any increase of Government activity in anything. We on this side—I would say we on the Left of British politics in general, and over the last hundred years—are not simply seeking what we may devour into the maw of State bureaucracy. We can go to bed happy after a day when we have not nationalised a thing. No, for at least a century the British Left has regarded State power as something to be wielded to rectify abuse, to protect the weak against the strong. Is it too colourful a claim to say that the Land Commission, which I hope that the House will approve this afternoon, is to protect the weak against the strong? I think not.
We have heard more than once about the "Lavender Hill Mob". I would ask any noble Lord who doubted this claim to take an observant walk, a field trip into urban values, through the bad bits of one of our cities and so into the commercial centre. He could walk through

1169
North Kensington and Notting Hill to the empty luxury blocks of Paddington, and so to the West End. Or he could walk through Hackney, Hoxton, Haggerston and Spitalfields into the City of London; or he could take the corresponding walks in a dozen other cities. He would see housing, largely tenement blocks, and streets and conditions the existence of which in a rich country—for we are a rich country—should make him ashamed for his country. And if he thought, as he stood amid the obscene decay and neglect of North Kensington that in this city, as in others, there are landowners sitting on their arses and raking in profits of many hundred per cent. for the land this city needs, I think that he would pass this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FILMS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
NEW TOWNS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
FAMILY PROVISION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.

SOLUS PETROL (No. 2) ORDER 1966
Reported from the Select Committee, That the Order should be allowed to proceed: together with a Special Report from the Select Committee; the said Special Report to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past eight o'clock.